2026-01-02 20:17:26

AAVE Labs' recent governance proposal has sparked quite a bit of discussion. What's the core issue? How should non-protocol revenue be distributed to token holders?

In simple terms, the profits generated by AAVE through various business activities are not limited to the operation of the protocol itself. The question is how to ensure token holders benefit from these earnings in the future. Additionally, the proposal also needs to address issues related to intellectual property rights—which is a relatively sensitive topic in Web3 projects.

Some community members support this direction, believing it can enhance the token's value capture ability. Others are concerned about implementation details and fairness. Anyway, everyone has their own opinions. Once the formal proposal is out, everyone can vote and decide. This is the charm of governance—giving the community a voice.

AAVE11,05%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

10 Likes

Reward
10
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CryptoSourGrape

· 6h ago

It's another distribution plan. If I had just gone all-in on AAVE two years ago, it would have been better. Now I'm just here to share the spoils... It's really outrageous.

View OriginalReply0

StablecoinGuardian

· 6h ago

It's time to share the rewards again. This time, can we keep it simple? The matter of this IP really needs to be clarified, or it will end up as a bunch of unfinished projects again. Holding tokens is the way to go. It sounds good, but it all depends on how it is implemented later. Voting, voting. We still have to pay attention to these details. It's exhausting. It seems that someone still needs to be taken care of. Fairness really needs to be addressed. Enhancing value capture is certainly good, but the key is not to turn it into an empty promise. In the past, such proposals would have torn the community apart. Now, things are much calmer.

View OriginalReply0

retroactive_airdrop

· 6h ago

Non-protocol revenue sharing? Now AAVE has to get serious, finally allowing token holders to benefit Wait, how will the IP issue be handled? Don’t turn it into another big fight Strengthening value capture ability is a good thing, but I’m worried the details will be a mess again This is true decentralization—voting and speaking up are much better than some project teams making decisions on a whim The key still depends on how the distribution is handled; don’t let the moat issue be unresolved again Waiting for the official proposal, this time it will probably cause a huge uproar

View OriginalReply0

NestedFox

· 6h ago

Here comes the profit-sharing again, this time finally thinking of the token holders haha Non-protocol income distribution sounds good, but I'm just worried it might be another "just listen" proposal The intellectual property part needs to be watched carefully, don’t end up supporting the big picture while messing around with the details Honestly, having more voting rights is useless; what's crucial is having someone who truly represents the interests of retail investors Let's wait and see if the whales will call the shots when voting time comes Enhancing value capture ability is a good thing, but how to achieve it is the real skill. Let’s wait and see

View OriginalReply0

BTCWaveRider

· 6h ago

Is there a new trick to cut leeks again? It sounds nice to say profit sharing, but I think it's still about giving more to the big players. It's the same old story with intellectual property; Web3 really can't keep things under wraps. They haven't released the details yet but are already hyping it up. When it comes to voting, it's the same old routine, and retail investors are still left behind. If you ask me, who ultimately benefits from this stuff is really hard to say; it all depends on how the proposal is written. This governance voting is always like this, with opinions from all sides, but in the end, it's the code that decides. The distribution mechanism isn't clear yet, so I'll wait and see. Anyway, there's no rush.

View OriginalReply0