#代币经济学与设计 The opposition votes from Wintermute have exposed the core contradictions in Aave's governance. Look at this proposal—transfer of brand asset control, sounds very democratic, but the lack of details is the real issue. Evgeny pointed out the key: no one clarified the nature of the future operating entity, the profit model, or the specific governance framework.

From a tokenomics perspective, this reflects a deeper underlying problem. Expectations between AAVE Labs and token holders are completely misaligned—one side wants control over the brand, while the other expects tangible value return. Brand ownership and profit distribution mechanisms are two separate issues, but the proposal mixes them together. What should be addressed first is: how much actual benefit can token holders gain from protocol growth? Is it direct dividends or through other mechanisms?

This disagreement has illustrative significance for the entire lending sector. If Aave hasn't figured out how to balance DAO power with actual returns, how can future projects design smarter solutions? It's worth paying attention to the voting results and subsequent responses from Labs—if the proposal passes but details remain unclear, the risk could actually increase.