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?

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?