A spark for the debate came from a token holder who questioned a decision to redirect frontend fees away from the DAO. The dispute widened into a call for tighter alignment between the company that incubated the first release and the cooperative that maintains the codebase today. Kulechov responded with a unifying message: revenue generated outside smart contracts can reach holders under a formal structure, with details to follow in governance.
Sharing income that sits beyond the protocol’s core contracts can address holder demands for cash-flow exposure without burdening the base layer. The DAO preserves neutrality and safety; holders receive an extra stream; independent product teams iterate faster and attract users without long coordination cycles.
Kulechov outlined a roadmap that targets real-world assets (RWA), consumer and institutional credit, and broader collateral types. The post favors a separation of roles: Aave Protocol remains an open market that scales through integrations and liquidity; third-party products — including lines incubated by Aave Labs — drive deposits, borrowing, and transaction volume. Protocol revenue returns via higher utilization; non-protocol revenue can flow to holders under a new channel once the DAO approves terms.
