My current take on the @aave situation. While the discussion is valid and important, the DAO is actually in greater peril that it realizes. The worst outcome would be standing on principle, but the market perception shifting to AAVE as a capricious political org.

History is rife with radical new organizations on the cusp of success only to fall to political infighting when the goal is finally within reach. This is perhaps the greatest moat centralization has against decentralization. The debate in AAVE is valid and important, but risky too.

While some are taking umbrage at @StaniKulechov leadership and @avara Labs privileged position, in my opinion perhaps a more productive way of viewing the relationship with Stani as one of AAVE's greatest strengths. While that doesn't justify centralization or obsequious deference, it's important from a practical point of view to understand how valuable Stani is to the organization. Undermining the public perception of his leadership on principle isn't imho wise.

That said, the core challenge that is being discussed in AAVE is valid. Where does the value of an organization accrue? @uniswap and @haydenzadams have very deftly navigated this with the recent Unification proposal, and we would be well to keep in mind that these structure chalanges are the result of 4 years of lawfare from the previous administration.