Aave has been quite turbulent lately. Brand ownership, front-end revenue, founder buyback empowerment... These issues pile up and bring one question to the forefront.

What does the vote say? The proposal to transfer the brand to the DAO was rejected. Here are the numbers: 55.29% opposed, 41.21% abstained, only 3.5% in favor. The result is obvious—the community still prefers the status quo.

But there's an interesting behind-the-scenes story. Aave is now a hybrid system: the DAO has voting rights, while Labs controls the front-end and branding. It seems like a dual-track system, but in reality, Labs makes decisions with a corporate mindset, while the DAO plays voting games. This asymmetry of power is now clearly visible.

Two core issues need to be considered: Is the AAVE token a certificate of economic power, or just a symbolic governance vote? Are risk and reward, rights and responsibilities truly balanced?

From another perspective: if AAVE is a real power certificate, then the DAO should control revenue and rule-making. If not, then it's just a governance shell. Looking at the risks—hacks, liquidation failures, system vulnerabilities—who ultimately bears the risk? The stakers in the Safety Module. Power is dispersed, but risks are concentrated on certain individuals—this logic doesn't add up.

Currently, Aave is essentially a transitional system. Whether it's about responsibilities, rights, and interests in pure form or in a hybrid, a balance must be found. No matter how adjustments are made, it can serve as a model for the industry. Ultimately, DAO governance is something unique to blockchain projects and also what makes the industry attractive. To see how to do it well, the approaches of MakerDAO and some other leading projects are worth studying.