Aave 價格AAVE

According to Onchain Lens data, a high-activity wallet initiated a significant AAVE position by deploying 1,086 ETH, valued at approximately $3.17 million, to acquire 20,375 AAVE tokens. The move underscores ongoing participation by large holders amid shifting liquidity dynamics in the decentralized finance landscape. Over the preceding four days, the same address extended its exposure with an additional 1,586 ETH (roughly $4.7 million) used to assemble 30,003 AAVE, yielding an average entry price near $156.65 per token. The aggregate timing signals a deliberate accumulation phase within the Ethereum-linked assets. Current accounting shows the wallet holding 59,955 AAVE, valued around $9.24 million, while the position registers an unrealized loss near $4.26 million. This divergence reflects mark-to-market swings in AAVE across volatile crypto markets, offering traders insight into risk and capital efficiency in sizable token allocations.

BlockBeats News, December 27th, according to Onchain Lens monitoring, a whale spent 1086 ETH (worth $3.17 million) to purchase 20,375 AAVE. Over the past 4 days, the whale has spent 1586 ETH ($4.7 million) to purchase 30,003 AAVE at an average price of $156.65. Currently, the whale holds 59,955 AAVE ($9.24 million) and faces an unrealized loss of $4.26 million.

The Aave DAO and community recently voted against a proposal to transfer brand ownership from Aave Labs to the decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) governing the leading DeFi protocol. Prominent leaders like Aave Labs founder and CEO Stani and Marc Zeller, founder of the Aavechan Initiative, commented on the outcome, noting that voting achieved a record turnout. What Did Aave Users Vote Against? According to on-chain data, Coinspeaker retrieved from Snapshot, the “[ARFC] $AAVE token alignment. Phase 1 – Ownership” proposal closed on December 25. The Christmas vote saw a record 1.8 million AAVE users participate. 994,800 AAVE (55.29%) voted “NAY”, 741,600 AAVE (41.21%) chose to abstain, and only 63,000 (3.5%) voted in favor of the proposal. --> “[ARFC] $AAVE token alignment. Phase 1 – Ownership” proposal | Source: Snapshot Essentially, the proposal suggested that AAVE token holders should seek to take control of Aave’s brand assets. In this case, domains, social media accounts, and naming rights would be placed under a DAO‑controlled structure to be defined later, with safeguards to prevent misuse or takeover. It called on whoever currently controls those assets to transfer them in both principle and practice, regardless of their identity. Many investors criticized the proposal for being made “in a rush” during ongoing discussions about Aave Labs’ actions and communication strategy, close to popular international holidays. This governance dispute has now consolidated as one of the most significant for a DeFi protocol, offering long-term lessons and setting relevant precedents for DAO voting going forward. Notably, the proposal stemmed from escalating tensions over revenue distribution and control of AAVE $155.0 24h volatility: 2.1% Market cap: $2.35 B Vol. 24h: $310.78 M off-chain assets. The controversy ignited earlier in December when governance delegates discovered that Aave Labs’ integration of CoW Swap into the official app.aave.com frontend had redirected swap fees (estimated at up to $10 million annually) from the DAO treasury to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs. Previously, the ParaSwap integration shared such revenues with the DAO, fueling accusations of “stealth privatization” and misalignment between the private development entity and token holders. Aave-Related Leaderships Comment on Recent DAO Record Vote As the vote wrapped up, Aave Labs founder and CEO Stani Kulechov commented on it on X. He said it was “a productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave.” In the post, Stani pledged commitment to making the economic alignment between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders clearer. Additionally, he expanded on his recently disclosed $15 million AAVE purchase, as Coinspeaker reported pre-holidays. He explained the amount was not used for this recent vote. “This is my life’s work,” Stani said, “I am putting my own capital behind my conviction.” Stani was the leader behind this proposal and a “YES” advocate. The recent DAO vote has wrapped up, and it has raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders. This is a productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave. While it's been a bit hectic, debate and disagreement… — Stani.eth (@StaniKulechov) December 26, 2025 Aavechan Initiative founder Marc “Billy” Zeller was one of the leading advocates for “ABSTAIN” votes in public discussions. He suggested that token holders abstain because the conditions were not ideal for making such an essential decision while discussions were still ongoing. He pointed out “a compressed timeline, a holiday period, and a debate that was still actively evolving.” Yet, in an X article published just a few minutes before Stani’s post above, Zeller highlighted the “massive” turnout of 1.8 million AAVE used by voters, claiming “DeFi will win.” “Despite an unfair timeline and every practical disadvantage stacked against the DAO, participation broke records, with 1,8M total voting power expressed. That is not a defeat for decentralization. It is the opposite of apathy, and that is exactly what a healthy DAO should look like,” he said. https://t.co/yKegmUERIn — Marc ”七十 Billy” Zeller (@Marczeller) December 26, 2025 Another prominent figure who commented on this governance proposal was Wintermute’s co-founder and CEO, Evgeny Gaevoy, a disclosed AAVE investor. Gaevoy highlighted “a clear expectation mismatch between AAVE Labs and a significant number of AAVE token holders” in many areas. Also, he disagreed with the forum proposal “as it stands now,” explaining it requires further elaboration to become feasible. Therefore, Wintermute and Evgeny Gaevoy voted and advocated for “NO,” the winning outcome. “It makes no sense to commit to a course of action without knowing the specifics. It’s far from obvious how the entity owning the front end and brand would be governed, whether it would be for profit or not, and whether it would actually guarantee value accrual to token holders.” Disclosures first (as should be customary). Wintermute (ventures) has been an investor in AAVE since 2022. We also have participated in governance and it is a decent part of our venture portfolio. I personally hold AAVE as well. Neither me personally, nor Wintermute have exposure… — wishful_cynic (@EvgenyGaevoy) December 25, 2025 Interestingly, on the same day of this reported proposal being refused, another relevant Ethereum DeFi protocol, Uniswap, approved a long-awaited governance proposal. On Dec. 25, the DAO voted in favor of the UNIfication overhaul, approving 100 million UNI Burn and activating the fee switch. next Vini Barbosa has covered the crypto industry professionally since 2020, summing up to over 10,000 hours of research, writing, and editing related content for media outlets and key industry players. Vini is an active commentator and a heavy user of the technology, truly believing in its revolutionary potential. Topics of interest include blockchain, open-source software, decentralized finance, and real-world utility. Vini Barbosa on X Share:

Aave’s $140M‑revenue year is overshadowed by a failed brand‑control vote, a $10M AAVE buy, and a brutal governance rift hammering the token. Summary DAO revenue hit $140M this year, exceeding the prior three years combined, with AAVE holders controlling the funds.​ A brand‑asset transfer proposal failed with 55% against and 41% abstaining, deepening the rift between Aave Labs and the DAO.​ AAVE price has dropped about 20% amid criticism of Kulechov’s $10M+ token buy and concerns over governance “attacks” and fee routing. Aave’s holiday governance drama has flipped into open confrontation, with founder Stani Kulechov now stressing that this year’s DAO revenue hit roughly $140 million — more than the previous three years combined — and insisting his multimillion-dollarAAVE (AAVE)buy was never used to sway the decisive brand-control vote that just failed.​ AAVE Dao versus AAVE Labs continues On Christmas week, while most desks in Paris and London ran skeleton crews and DeFi volumes thinned out, Aave’s governance channels turned into a full‑blown street fight over who actually controls the protocol’s name, domains and soft IP. The clash culminated in the rejection of an Aave Request for Comment (ARFC) to transfer core brand assets from Aave Labs to the DAO, with more than 55% of votes against and over 41% of participants simply refusing to take a side.​ In a fresh statement on X, Aave founder and CEO Stani Kulechov tried to reset the narrative. “I am committed to clarifying the economic interests between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders,” he wrote, conceding that “our explanations in this regard have not been sufficient, and we will strive to improve in the future.” He underscored what he called the missing context in the uproar: “The DAO has generated $140 million in revenue this year, surpassing the total revenue of the past three years, and $AAVE token holders have control over these funds.”​ The recent DAO vote has wrapped up, and it has raised important questions about the relationship between Aave Labs and $AAVE token holders. This is a productive discussion that’s essential for the long-term health of Aave.While it's been a bit hectic, debate and disagreement…— Stani.eth (@StaniKulechov) December 26, 2025 That reminder landed in a market that has been busy pricing in governance risk. Over the past week,AAVE (AAVE)has dumped around 20%, sliding from the high $180s toward the mid‑$140s, with intraday ranges showing sharp $5–$7 wicks as liquidity thins out above $155 and aggressive sellers keep leaning on any bounce. One whale already moved more than 230,000 AAVE — roughly $37 million at the time — in a single sell program, pushing price down near $162 and leaving a very obvious supply overhang on the daily chart that traders are now treating as de facto resistance.​ At the heart of the dispute sits Kulechov’s recent purchase of roughly $10–15 million worth of AAVE tokens, executed into an order book that was already jittery and heavily skewed to perpetuals rather than spot. Critics called it a “governance attack,” arguing the timing effectively allowed the founder to bulk up his voting power right before a contentious series of votes on brand control and revenue routing went to Snapshot. Kulechov pushed back hard on that framing, stating bluntly that “these tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal; that was never my intention,” and adding, “this is my lifelong career, and I support my beliefs with my own funds.”​ The ARFC on brand asset transfer, which would have moved Aave’s domains, trademarks and social channels into a DAO‑controlled legal wrapper, became a lightning rod. Governance stewards and large delegates blasted the holiday timing as a “hostile” move, noting the vote was pushed through a low‑participation window when many institutional token holders and protocol‑aligned market makers were effectively offline. The final tally — 994,800 votes against, just 63,000 in favor and a massive abstain bloc — exposed a deep split between Aave Labs and the DAO over how fast, and how far, the protocol should push decentralization of off‑chain assets.​ Under the surface, this is also about cash flows and interface economics, not just logos and Twitter handles. Community members have accused recent frontend changes of diverting swap‑related revenue away from the DAO, feeding a narrative that core development is quietly tightening its grip just as real‑world asset volumes and fee income start to scale. Against that backdrop, Kulechov’s emphasis on the DAO’s $140 million in annual revenue feels less like abstract accounting and more like a reminder that the on‑chain treasury — not the brand wrapper — is where the actual power sits right now.​ Markets are trading it with the subtlety of a sledgehammer. Funding has flipped negative on several AAVE perp pairs after Monday’s low was swept and failed to hold, with mid‑cap DeFi names catching a bid while AAVE itself stays pinned below prior local support, a classic “problem child” setup that desks in Paris and Zug have seen a hundred times in governance blow‑ups. Ignore the noise and you still get a blunt picture: this rally dies the second AAVE slips cleanly under the $140–$142 pocket where spot demand last showed up; below that, it is pure exit liquidity until governance settles or some bigger player decides the discount justifies stepping in.​ Kulechov, for his part, is now promising a clearer roadmap. “In the future, we will more clearly articulate how the products developed by Aave Labs create value for the DAO and $AAVE token holders,” he said, signaling that the next phase of communication will focus on tighter alignment between core development and tokenholder economics rather than rushed votes during holiday trading lulls. But still, after a week of accusations, failed proposals and a double‑digit drawdown, the burden of proof has shifted; Aave’s governance experiment is very much live‑fire now, and the market is watching the next Snapshot like a hawk.