On December 24, 2025, the DeFi ecosystem is facing a crisis following a 10 million dollar token purchase by Stani Kulechov. According to reports from specialists like Robert Mullins, this acquisition aims to consolidate his voting power in a critical proposal for the protocol. This maneuver occurs during a high-tension period where Aave DAO governance is being questioned due to the alleged centralization of strategic decisions.
The controversy escalated when Aave Labs pushed a Snapshot vote to claim control over the protocol’s brand assets. Moreover, former CTO Ernesto Boado claimed that his proposal was sent to vote without his consent, breaking the community’s established trust. Therefore, critics point out that this action represents a hostile takeover attempt by the original founding team members at this time.
Snapshot data reveals that only three wallets dominate more than 58 percent of the total voting power available. Additionally, the founder has accumulated over 84,000 AAVE units in the past week amid high market volatility. In this way, the community fears that decisions benefit private interests over the small holders within the decentralized autonomous organization right now.
Power concentration in few hands threatens the transparency and decentralization of the leading lending protocol
On the other hand, the market has reacted negatively to the lack of internal consensus and perceived authoritarian management. Also, a 18 percent drop in the asset’s price has been recorded during the latest financial sessions. Nevertheless, Kulechov defends his stance by claiming that the discussion has lasted long enough to make definitive decisions regarding the project’s long-term future.
In this scenario, several companies in the sector are closely monitoring how the dispute over intellectual property and domains is resolved. Because of this, the resolution of this conflict will define if the protocol maintains its decentralized essence or centralizes further. Likewise, the use of CoW Swap fees has been another constant point of friction between the developers and the users.
Can the current voting system protect minority interests against the protocol’s largest whales?
The platform’s future depends on restoring technical and ethical trust among its multiple participants and large delegates. On the other hand, if the token alignment proposal fails, ecosystem fragmentation could be inevitable and very costly. It is also likely that new mechanisms to prevent governance capture by large capital entities will be proposed very soon.
To invalidate the bearish sentiment, the team must implement more transparent and participatory processes in their next structural updates. Meanwhile, investors must act with extreme caution due to the legal and technical uncertainty surrounding the brand. In short, the outcome of this crisis will be essential to establish precedents in decentralized management for large global financial protocols.
