Aave Token 價格AAVE

Cryptocurrency analytics company Santiment shared the altcoins that stand out in the DeFi ecosystem according to developer activity. According to Santiment’s study, which is based on data from “significant developer events” on GitHub, the top 10 DeFi projects that developers are most focused on as we enter 2026 are ranked. According to Santiment data, here are the top 10 DeFi altcoins that developers are focusing on most, along with their 30-day developer activity: ChainLink (LINK) – 222.43 DeFiChain (DFI) – 127.93 DeepBook Protocol (DEEP) – 116.50 Lido DAO (LDO) – 58.47 FOX Token (FOX) – 50.80 Babylon (BABY) – 43.47 Aave (AAVE) – 42.13 Uniswap (UNI) – 33.63 Curve Finance (CRV) – 30.70 Euler (EUL) – 24.70 ” ] DeFi tokens were among the biggest winners during the massive altcoin bull run of 2021. However, recently they have been performing far below their previous levels. Tokens with a high fully diluted value (FDV) or unlimited supply, while their market capacities remain relatively stable, are experiencing significant price drops due to depletion. *This is not investment advice. Follow our Telegram and Twitter account now for exclusive news, analytics and on-chain data!

$AAVE governance drama is a reminder that DAO trust matters as much as code. Stani denies buying AAVE to sway the vote, but the backlash shows a deeper issue: unclear alignment between Labs, IP, and token holders. When communication breaks, even decentralized systems feel centralized.

Aave's DAO generates $140 million in revenue. Rejected brand proposal deepens governance crisis. AAVE token falls amid criticism of internal purchases. Aave's governance entered one of the most tense periods in its history during the holiday season, when disagreements between Aave Labs and the DAO came to light amid record revenue figures and a significant drop in the AAVE token. The debate intensified after the rejection of a proposal that sought to transfer the brand's assets to a structure controlled by the DAO. In 2025, Aave's DAO accumulated approximately US$140 million in revenue, surpassing the combined total of the previous three years. This performance placed AAVE token holders at the center of treasury control, reinforcing the economic relevance of on-chain governance. Still, the debate over who should hold the rights to the protocol's brand, domains, and intellectual property has caused a clear division between the community and the development team. The Aave Request for Comments (ARFC) proposal was rejected with over 55% of votes against, while approximately 41% of participants abstained. The result highlighted resistance to the transfer of Aave Labs' brand assets to DAO, as well as criticism of the timing of the vote, considered unfavorable due to the low participation typical of the holiday season. Related Stories Conflict at Aave exposes dispute over fees and ownership of the protocol. 23/12/2025 Aave faces dispute in DAO after brand proposal goes to Snapshot. 22/12/2025 Amid the backlash, Aave founder Stani Kulechov sought to clarify his position in a public statement. “I am committed to clarifying the economic interests between Aave Labs and the holders of the $AAVE token,” he stated. He also acknowledged communication failures and highlighted that “the DAO generated $140 million in revenue this year, exceeding the total revenue of the last three years, and the holders of the $AAVE token have control over these funds.” The recent DAO vote has wrapped up, and it has raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $ AAVE token holders. This is a productive discussion that's essential for the long-term health of Aave. While it's been a bit hectic, debate and disagreement… — Stani.eth (@StaniKulechov) December 26, 2025 The market reacted quickly to the uncertainty. The price of AAVE fell by about 20%, dropping from around $180 to levels around $140. The pressure increased after the revelation that Kulechov had acquired between $10 million and $15 million worth of AAVE tokens, a move that generated criticism about a possible strengthening of voting power. The founder denied any intention to influence recent votes, stating that "these tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal; that was never my intention." Beyond the dispute over the brand, community members raised concerns about fee routing and interface changes, which could impact the DAO's value capture. In this context, Aave's governance came to be seen as a relevant test of alignment between development, treasury, and token holder interests. At the end of a week marked by rejected proposals, public criticism, and market volatility, Aave remains with a financially strong DAO, but is under pressure to redefine governance and communication processes at a crucial moment for the protocol. Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed by the author, or anyone mentioned in this article, are for informational purposes only and do not constitute financial, investment or other advice. Investing or trading cryptocurrencies carries a risk of financial loss. Tags: Aave Labs DAO

Aave founder denies claims that a large AAVE token purchase aimed to influence a governance vote that failed. Aave DAO members questioned transparency after fee revenue from CoW Swap moved to a wallet linked to Aave Labs. Governance tensions increased after the community rejected the brand asset proposal and criticized the rushed process. Stani Kulechov has rejected claims that a recent purchase of AAVE tokens aimed to influence a failed governance vote. The dispute has added pressure to governance processes at Aave during an already tense period. ✦ Aave $AAVE founder Stani Kulechov refutes allegations of manipulating DAO vote through token purchases:Stani Kulechov, founder and CEO of Aave $AAVE Labs, has addressed the Aave $AAVE community's concerns regarding the connection between the Aave $AAVE DAO and Aave $AAVE…— ZoneCrypto (@_ZoneCrypto_) December 27, 2025 Community members raised concerns after blockchain data showed a large AAVE acquisition. However, the vote at the center of the dispute failed to pass by a wide margin. The episode has triggered broader debate around transparency and alignment within the protocol. Governance vote sparks scrutiny The controversy followed a proposal to transfer Aave brand assets to the control of the Aave DAO. The DAO governs protocol decisions and manages community-owned assets. Members reviewed the proposal after questions emerged about revenue handling. The vote ended with more than half rejecting the proposal. A large portion of voters also chose to abstain, reflecting deep division. Concerns escalated after a DAO member highlighted fee flows tied to an integration with CoW Swap. These fees originated from asset swaps conducted through the aggregator. Community members argued that the revenue should flow directly to the DAO. Instead, the funds moved to a wallet linked to Aave Labs. That detail intensified criticism and increased calls for accountability. Token purchase allegations denied Some community members alleged that the AAVE purchase increased voting power ahead of the proposal. They suggested the timing could influence governance outcomes. Kulechov denied using the tokens for voting purposes. He also rejected any intention to sway the result. The proposal ultimately failed, weakening claims of vote manipulation. Despite the denial, the incident highlighted governance sensitivities. DAO members questioned whether economic relationships remain clearly defined. Others argued that unclear boundaries blur incentives between builders and token holders. The dispute has since fueled calls for clearer communication. Many believe this step could reduce future friction. Process concerns and authorship dispute Frustration grew as members criticized how the proposal entered the governance process. Several claimed the submission moved forward without standard consultation. This perception added to distrust during the vote. The issue deepened when the listed author distanced himself from the proposal. Ernesto Boado, a former senior executive, appeared as the proposal author. However, he later stated that the submission occurred without his knowledge. He also said he would not have supported publishing it without prior review. This revelation further damaged confidence in internal coordination. The governance dispute has since shifted focus toward procedure and disclosure. Members now demand clearer rules around proposal submissions. Others stress the need for defined economic alignment. As debates continue, the episode underscores ongoing challenges in decentralized governance. Tags: Aave (AAVE) AAVE protocol Blockchain Crypto market cryptocurrency Governance Vote Stani Kulechov