Aave Founder Accused of ‘Governance Attack’ After $10M Buy Before Crucial Vote

Aave founder Stani Kulechov is facing renewed scrutiny from parts of the crypto community following a $10 million purchase of AAVE tokens made shortly before a closely watched governance vote.

Critics allege the move was intended to increase his voting power rather than signal long-term alignment with token holders.

The allegation surfaced publicly this week after Robert Mullins, a decentralized finance strategist and liquidity specialist, said on X that the purchase appeared timed to influence an upcoming vote.

I’m surprised that no one is talking about the fact that Stani bought $10M of AAVE, claimed it was bc he is aligned with the token yet in actual fact it was to increase his voting power in anticipation to vote for a proposal directly against the token holders best interests

This…

— Robert (@0xluude) December 23, 2025

Mullins argued that the transaction highlights structural weaknesses in token-based governance systems, where large holders can quickly accumulate influence without long-term commitments.

He questioned whether similar behavior would occur under governance models that require tokens to be locked for extended periods.

Aave Governance Turmoil Exposes Fault Lines Over Power and Transparency

Those concerns were echoed by prominent crypto user Sisyphus, who pointed to blockchain data suggesting Kulechov may have sold millions of dollars’ worth of AAVE between 2021 and 2025.

On AAVE:

I fail to understand why Stani, who must have dumped hundreds of millions of dollars of valueless governance tokens from 2021 to 2025, would rebuy $10 million dollars of tokens in order to try and take a <$10 million dollar revenue stream

— Sisyphus (@0xSisyphus) December 24, 2025

While no wrongdoing has been established, critics questioned the economic rationale of selling large amounts over several years before making a sizable purchase ahead of a contentious vote.

The debate has unfolded against a broader governance dispute within the Aave ecosystem over control of the protocol’s brand and associated assets.

On December 22, Aave Labs submitted a proposal to Snapshot concerning ownership of key brand assets, including the aave.com domain, social media accounts, GitHub organizations, and naming rights.

🙅‍♂️ Aave Labs unilaterally pushed a brand ownership proposal to vote without author notification, escalating governance tensions over protocol asset control and value extraction.#Dao #Aavehttps://t.co/2uRM8QM6Jy

— Cryptonews.com (@cryptonews) December 22, 2025

The proposal had been authored by Ernesto Boado, co-founder of BGD Labs, but Boado publicly rejected the decision to push it to a vote, saying he had not been notified and did not support the version submitted.

Boado said the move broke trust during what he described as a productive forum discussion and argued that the proposal was intended to transfer brand assets into a DAO-controlled legal wrapper with strong protections against capture.

Tensions Rise Around Aave Over Brand Use, Fee Flows, and Whale Voting

The initiative followed mounting concerns from contributors that brand assets were being used to support private products without the DAO being the main beneficiary.

Recent examples cited by critics include Aave Labs replacing Paraswap with CowSwap, a change estimated to redirect around $10 million per year in fees away from the DAO, and the Horizon market launch, which generated roughly $100,000 in revenue while using about $500,000 in DAO incentives.

Marc Zeller of the Aave Chan Initiative said the DAO had effectively paid multiple times for these assets through the original LEND token sale, dilution, liquidity mining programs, and service provider fees.

Kulechov defended the rushed vote, saying discussion had already taken place and that submitting proposals outside extended processes was not unprecedented. He said the issue should ultimately be resolved through voting.

Those who wonder, yes the vote is legitimate

– The discussion has been going over the past 5 days already with various of opinions and takes, a timeline set on the ARFC temp check (see more https://t.co/KovomHiB6H)
– The Snapshot is in compliance of the governance framework
-… https://t.co/nZoixZvbwl

— Stani.eth (@StaniKulechov) December 22, 2025

However, several observers, including crypto educator Duo Nine, raised concerns about conflicts of interest when founders retain influence through private companies while also shaping DAO outcomes.

Voting data has further fueled the debate. Samuel McCulloch of USD.ai noted that a small number of large holders account for a significant share of voting power.

Snapshot data shows the top three voters control more than 58% of the vote, with the largest wallet holding over 27%.

The controversy comes shortly after regulatory pressure on Aave eased.

On December 16, Kulechov disclosed that the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission had concluded its multi-year investigation into the protocol without recommending enforcement action, ending nearly four years of uncertainty.

Aave Labs has also secured MiCA authorization in Europe and is preparing for the launch of Aave V4.