Trending topics
#
Bonk Eco continues to show strength amid $USELESS rally
#
Pump.fun to raise $1B token sale, traders speculating on airdrop
#
Boop.Fun leading the way with a new launchpad on Solana.
Raphaël Bloch 🐳
Cofounder & Editor-in-Chief @TheBigWhale_ (ex @Reuters, @LesEchos)
As usual, European leaders approach competitiveness with a hemiplegic vision — seeing only half of the strategic picture.
In an interview with the @FT, EU competition chief @Teresaribera makes a correct argument: Europe must defend its regulatory model if it wants to remain competitive in a global economy:
"As Europeans, we cannot bet on a race to the bottom," she says. "We know that through the regulation we create these high standards."
And she warns that "if we lose our identity, our values, the confidence of our people, we will not be in a position to negotiate anything."
She is right on one essential point: regulation is a lever of power.
But this is where the argument stops short.
Regulation only works if EU accepts the most uncomfortable truth of global competition: you can only export your rules if you dominate economically.
American and Chinese shape global markets because they are carried by giants — Big Tech, Big Industry, Big Finance — that act as unavoidable standard-setters.
Their scale turns domestic rules into global norms.
Europe, by contrast, wants to regulate the world while refusing to be a power.
It wants standards without scale. Influence without champions. Sovereignty without dominance.
For years, the EU has deliberately chosen to define itself not as a space of power, but as a space of competition — fragmenting markets, blocking mergers, and disciplining its own potential giants in the name of fairness.
The result is paradoxical: Europe regulates companies it does not have, in markets it does not dominate.
This is not moral superiority. It is strategic hemiplegia.
If Europe truly believes that regulation is a source of competitiveness, then it must also believe in economic dominance, industrial scale, and European champions capable of carrying those rules worldwide.
You cannot impose norms on the planet if you refuse to be a power on it.
This hemiplegic approach must end — otherwise, EU will continue to fade, losing influence, ambition, and the very power its regulations are meant to project.
414
There is a solution to the Aave DAO / Labs tension: allow the community to hold both governance tokens and equity in Aave Labs.
It wouldn’t be simple, but it would align incentives, decentralize control, and resolve the misalignment we see today.
Right now, the problem is clear:
The DAO governs the protocol.
Aave Labs owns the interface & the brand — the fact that they can launch an application called "Aave" using the Aave logo shows they control the business.
This creates a misalignment: tokenholders can vote on the protocol, but cannot participate in the business itself.
Think of it like TradFi:
Equity = share of profits.
Governance = say in operations.
In Aave today:
You can buy tokens: vote on the protocol.
But you cannot buy equity in the company running the business.
This is the real root of the tension. Governance exists on-chain, economic control stays off-chain. And while implementing equity/token integration wouldn’t be trivial, what we see today was already baked in from the beginning — it’s just surfacing now.
This isn’t just an @aave problem — every project with a token faces this structural tension.
Here’s the part nobody talks about:
A token + equity system has huge virtues. It allows a project to decentralize governance and align incentives.
But to work fully, you have to go all the way: don’t stop at "anyone can hold the token" while equity remains inaccessible.
Tokenholders govern the protocol. Tokenholders / community can also hold equity in the company, aligning incentives with the business side.
I want to be clear: I have enormous respect for the builders behind Aave, like @StaniKulechov, who have done an incredible job creating a protocol used by millions. But the current structure is not tenable in the long term.
When both token and equity are accessible, there’s no misalignment between governance, value capture, and execution.
Dec 23, 2025
The @aave drama is about who really owns a "decentralized" bank — and who quietly controls the money, the brand, and the keyboard.
Imagine Aave as a large global bank.
The DAO are the shareholders.
They bought shares (AAVE tokens) and are supposed to vote on strategy, revenues, and ownership.
Aave Labs is management.
They built the infrastructure, run the website, maintain the systems, and execute day-to-day operations.
So far, this is normal.
Now the issue.
The bank’s official website starts generating millions per year in transaction fees.
But instead of flowing into the bank’s treasury (the DAO), the money goes directly to management.
When shareholders ask why, management replies:
"The website isn’t technically the bank. We built it."
That’s the first crack.
Then shareholders realize something worse.
The brand, the name, the logo, the domains, the social accounts — none of it legally belongs to the bank.
It belongs to management.
So you end up with a "decentralized bank" where:
- shareholders provide capital
- the protocol does the work
- but management owns the storefront, the brand, and the revenue tap
The DAO now tries to vote to bring the brand and revenue back under shareholder control.
Management pushes back, warning this looks like a "hostile takeover."
Markets react, tokens get sold, trust gets questioned.
The lesson is brutal but simple:
A "decentralized" bank can be owned by everyone —
while still being controlled by whoever holds the keyboard.
And this isn’t just an Aave problem.
It’s a warning for all DeFi projects that combine protocol + front-end + brand under one team.
If you control the interface or the brand, you control the story — and the cash flow — even if the DAO technically owns the protocol.
Contrast that with @Morpho or @eulerfinance: they are pure primitives.
They don’t control an interface, a brand, or a treasury outside the protocol.
They are market-neutral infrastructure.
No one team can redirect fees or influence perception.
The DAO truly owns the protocol, because there is no "company" running the front-end or hoarding revenues.
Aave’s case is a cautionary tale:
If you build both the protocol and the interface, the line between decentralization and control blurs — and the DAO may be powerless in practice.
DeFi projects should ask themselves: do we want to be a bank with keyboards, or a primitive that truly belongs to its users?
908
A quick note to those endlessly repeating that there's a "difference" between Aave tokenholders (DAO) and equityholders (Aave Labs): everyone understands that—and that's exactly the problem.
LOL.
Dec 23, 2025
The @aave drama is about who really owns a "decentralized" bank — and who quietly controls the money, the brand, and the keyboard.
Imagine Aave as a large global bank.
The DAO are the shareholders.
They bought shares (AAVE tokens) and are supposed to vote on strategy, revenues, and ownership.
Aave Labs is management.
They built the infrastructure, run the website, maintain the systems, and execute day-to-day operations.
So far, this is normal.
Now the issue.
The bank’s official website starts generating millions per year in transaction fees.
But instead of flowing into the bank’s treasury (the DAO), the money goes directly to management.
When shareholders ask why, management replies:
"The website isn’t technically the bank. We built it."
That’s the first crack.
Then shareholders realize something worse.
The brand, the name, the logo, the domains, the social accounts — none of it legally belongs to the bank.
It belongs to management.
So you end up with a "decentralized bank" where:
- shareholders provide capital
- the protocol does the work
- but management owns the storefront, the brand, and the revenue tap
The DAO now tries to vote to bring the brand and revenue back under shareholder control.
Management pushes back, warning this looks like a "hostile takeover."
Markets react, tokens get sold, trust gets questioned.
The lesson is brutal but simple:
A "decentralized" bank can be owned by everyone —
while still being controlled by whoever holds the keyboard.
And this isn’t just an Aave problem.
It’s a warning for all DeFi projects that combine protocol + front-end + brand under one team.
If you control the interface or the brand, you control the story — and the cash flow — even if the DAO technically owns the protocol.
Contrast that with @Morpho or @eulerfinance: they are pure primitives.
They don’t control an interface, a brand, or a treasury outside the protocol.
They are market-neutral infrastructure.
No one team can redirect fees or influence perception.
The DAO truly owns the protocol, because there is no "company" running the front-end or hoarding revenues.
Aave’s case is a cautionary tale:
If you build both the protocol and the interface, the line between decentralization and control blurs — and the DAO may be powerless in practice.
DeFi projects should ask themselves: do we want to be a bank with keyboards, or a primitive that truly belongs to its users?
810
Top
Ranking
Favorites