#治理投票 Seeing Wintermute oppose this new Aave proposal, honestly, I’m not surprised. After years of navigating on-chain, the biggest fear is those governance resolutions that "sound democratic but are a mess in the details."

Transferring brand asset control to token holders? Sounds pretty aggressive. But the truth is, Evgeny is right— the proposal lacks specific details. Who maintains the frontend? Who decides the brand direction? Who bears the operational costs? None of these are clarified, yet they want to pass it by voting—that’s gambling. I’ve seen too many projects where unclear governance turns into power struggles between large holders and the development team, with ordinary token holders ending up being the ones cut.

A deeper issue is the misalignment of token value accrual. Aave Labs and token holders each want their own thing, and this isn’t a technical problem; it’s a trust issue. When core profit distribution of a leading protocol can spark such disputes, it shows that the governance model of infrastructure projects itself has flaws.

My advice is: before such governance votes, check three key points—are the boundaries of power clear, is the profit distribution mechanism transparent, and is the enforcement and supervision feasible? If all three are vague, then no matter how democratic it looks, it’s a trap. The experience on-chain shows that vague promises often end in failure.