Aave Labs to Share Non‑Protocol Revenue with AAVE Holders After Failed DAO Integration
Aave founder Stani Kulechov said Aave Labs will share future non‑protocol revenue with AAVE governance token holders. The revenue will come from off‑protocol ventures such as real‑world asset (RWA) tokenization, institutional lending products and consumer financial applications. The announcement follows the failure of AIP 2025‑01 — a proposal to make Aave Labs a subsidiary of the Aave DAO — which stalled amid concerns over legal complexity, operational agility and dilution of DAO control. The debate intensified after Kulechov made a sizable pre‑vote purchase of AAVE to cast votes, raising questions about founder influence and centralization. Aave Labs plans to submit a formal governance proposal that will define revenue‑sharing mechanics, reporting standards and how “non‑protocol revenue” is audited and distributed. Traders should watch the proposal text, the precise definition and auditability of non‑protocol revenue, on‑chain voting patterns, and announcements of revenue‑generating product launches from Aave Labs. Potential implications include greater demand for AAVE as a yield‑bearing asset, pressure on other foundational teams to adopt similar value‑sharing models, and increased regulatory scrutiny around whether revenue distribution affects token securities classification.
Bullish
Net market impact on AAVE is likely bullish. The announcement creates a clearer economic link between Aave Labs’ off‑protocol revenue and AAVE token holders, which can increase demand for the token as a yield‑bearing asset once revenue‑sharing mechanics are defined and audited. Short term, uncertainty around proposal details, the definition of “non‑protocol revenue,” and founder voting behavior could cause volatility and selling pressure, but those risks are conditional on governance outcomes. If the formal proposal provides transparent, on‑chain distribution rules and reliable audits, it would convert potential future company profits into a tangible benefit for token holders — a positive fundamental catalyst. Additionally, comparable teams may adopt similar value‑sharing models, reinforcing sector narratives that native tokens can capture project-level economic value. Regulatory uncertainty remains a downside risk: formalized profit distribution could attract scrutiny about securities classification, which would moderate upside depending on jurisdictional responses. Overall, assuming a workable proposal and clear auditing, the longer‑term effect should support AAVE demand and price; near‑term reaction will hinge on governance vote results and proposal clarity.