La crisis de gobernabilidad de Aave: evaluando el impacto en el valor del token y los modelos de gobernabilidad de DeFi

The Aave governance crisis of late 2025 has escalated into a pivotal moment for decentralized finance (DeFi), exposing deep fractures between Aave Labs and the Aave DAO. At its core, the dispute revolves around control of brand assets, revenue allocation, and the perceived misalignment of incentives between the protocol's development team and token holders. For investors, this crisis presents both strategic risks and short-term trading opportunities, as the fallout could reshape Aave's governance model and influence broader DeFi governance paradigms.

The Current State of the Crisis

The immediate catalyst for the crisis was the failed Snapshot vote to transfer ownership of Aave's brand assets-including trademarks, domain names, and social media accounts-to the DAO. The proposal, which aimed to counter accusations of "stealth privatization," was rejected with 55% of votes against it, 41% abstained, and only 3.5% in favor according to MEXC reports. Critics argued the vote was rushed and poorly timed, particularly during the holiday season, while proponents framed it as a necessary step to align Aave Labs with the DAO's interests.

Aave Labs, meanwhile, has faced scrutiny over its handling of fees from the CoW Swap integration. On-chain data reveals that approximately $200,000 per week in swap fees were routed to a private wallet controlled by the company, potentially diverting up to $10 million annually from the DAO treasury. Founder Stani Kulechov defended these actions, stating that frontend revenue was voluntary and not automatically attributable to the DAO. However, this stance has drawn sharp criticism, with delegates like Marc Zeller labeling it as "stealth privatization".

Compounding tensions, Kulechov's recent purchase of $10–15 million worth of AAVE tokens has raised concerns about centralized voting power. While he claims the tokens were acquired for long-term commitment and not used for voting, the move has fueled skepticism about alignment with the community.

Strategic Risks to Token Value and Governance Models

The AAVE token has already fallen over 20% amid the crisis, reflecting investor uncertainty about the protocol's governance trajectory. This volatility underscores several strategic risks:

1. Erosion of Trust: The DAO's rejection of the brand transfer proposal, coupled with Aave Labs' opaque revenue practices, risks alienating token holders. Trust is a critical asset in DeFi, and its erosion could lead to reduced participation in governance and liquidity provision.

2. Governance Model Fragility: Aave's crisis highlights the inherent challenges of balancing operational control with decentralized governance. The lack of clear boundaries between Aave Labs and the DAO-particularly regarding revenue streams and intellectual property-raises questions about the sustainability of its governance model. If unresolved, this could deter institutional adoption and stifle innovation.

3. Legal and Reputational Exposure: The accusation of "stealth privatization" could attract regulatory scrutiny, particularly if Aave Labs is perceived as extracting value from a public protocol. Additionally, reputational damage could drive users to competing platforms with more transparent governance structures.

Short-Term Trading Opportunities

Despite the risks, the crisis creates asymmetric opportunities for traders who can navigate the volatility:

1. Volatility Arbitrage: The AAVE token's sharp decline has created a high-risk, high-reward environment. Traders might consider short-term options strategies (e.g., straddles or iron condors) to capitalize on expected price swings, particularly ahead of key governance votes or statements from Kulechov.

2. Catalyst-Driven Bets: The failure of the brand transfer proposal has not ended the conflict. As noted by delegate Marc Zeller, a revised proposal could be reintroduced under "fairer conditions." Traders might position for a rebound in AAVE if the community reaches a compromise or if Aave Labs clarifies its revenue-sharing model.

3. Hedging Against Further Downturns: Given the uncertainty, investors holding AAVE could hedge with put options or short-term sell orders to mitigate downside risk. The token's price is likely to remain sensitive to news cycles, particularly around governance updates or regulatory developments.

Broader Implications for DeFi Governance

Aave's crisis is a microcosm of the broader challenges facing DeFi governance. The tension between development teams and DAOs-often referred to as the "protocol ownership paradox"-remains unresolved. While Aave Labs emphasizes its $140 million in 2025 revenue as a testament to the protocol's success according to Bitget reports, the lack of clear alignment with the DAO risks undermining long-term value creation.

For investors, the key takeaway is that governance models must evolve to address these tensions. Protocols that fail to reconcile operational efficiency with decentralized control may face similar crises, while those that innovate-such as by codifying revenue-sharing mechanisms or adopting multi-stakeholder governance-could gain a competitive edge.

Conclusion

Aave's governance crisis is a cautionary tale for DeFi, illustrating the fragility of decentralized governance when incentives are misaligned. For token investors, the immediate focus should be on managing risk through hedging and volatility strategies, while keeping a close eye on catalysts like revised governance proposals or regulatory responses. In the longer term, the crisis underscores the need for governance models that balance innovation with transparency-a lesson that will shape the future of DeFi.