Aave Labs Proposes to Establish Cayman Foundation
Aave Labs submitted an ARFC in the governance forum, proposing the establishment of the Aave Foundation. This is a foundation company registered under the Cayman Islands Foundation Companies Law, with no members, aimed solely at holding, protecting, and licensing intellectual property for the Aave protocol.
The first phase involves only registration and the appointment of independent directors, independent supervisors, and a secretary. Directors and supervisors must not have any mutual affiliations. After the initial appointments, directors can only be appointed or removed by AIP. Aave Labs, any DAO service providers, and their affiliates are not allowed to appoint or hold these two positions. Reasonable registration, legal, and appointment fees will be borne by the DAO, with no ongoing budget; any future funding must be proposed separately. The proposal will be drafted by Aave Labs, stating that it has no governance or economic role in the foundation and will not take this establishment fee.
The intellectual property of trademarks, main domain names, and protocol code repositories will not be transferred in this phase. Once the entity can hold property rights, these assets will be transferred, with each step returning to governance separately. The foundation will also take over the intellectual property transferred under service provider agreements. Brand licensing is one-way and free, allowing products bearing the Aave name to continue being released. The foundation is responsible for registration maintenance, infringement defense, and enforcement, with no voting rights, veto rights, or advisory roles. Listing tokens, parameters, budgets, service provider selection, and framework revisions will still follow existing governance.
The proposal states that the DAO has funded service providers for years to produce code, risk tools, models, and documentation, but ownership handling has been inconsistent, with some falling under the actual developers' names; trademarks and main domain names are currently not under DAO control. The DAO itself cannot register trademarks, cannot initiate infringement lawsuits, and cannot hold domain names, resulting in having paid but being unable to defend. A Cayman Islands foundation without members can hold property rights, sign contracts, and appear in court, without shareholders standing above the protocol. The community can stop at any stage, and the foundation will still exist according to established governance. The DAO can agree to amend the charter, dispose of core intellectual property, merge, or reorganize through AIP, and can also instruct liquidation and transfer remaining assets to successor entities.
The foundation must disclose its held assets, ownership changes, operating expenses, and legal actions taken for trademarks or code on a quarterly basis in the governance forum, with the first report released within 90 days after the end of the first complete natural quarter. After consensus is formed, it will enter Snapshot, and then the AIP will authorize expenses. Founder Stani Kulechov publicly supports this case, stating it aligns with the Aave Will Win framework, transferring intellectual property to the DAO side, strengthening AAVE as a single central asset, and removing the dual structure of tokens and equity. He previously stated that protocol and GHO revenues flow 100% to AAVE, and Labs is a service provider, not sharing protocol revenues.
This is not a secondary market transaction. Before the proposal passes, trademarks and domain names remain outside the DAO, with no asset delivery. Buyers are AAVE holders who hope to have brand and legal defense rights fall under token governance; sellers are service providers who currently hold DAO-funded outputs but may be required to transfer code and documentation to the foundation upon renewal. The event is driven by governance voting, not treasury sell-offs. Beneficiaries are those who, if the subsequent phase is truly transferred, can sue and license using the same entity on the token side; the pressure is on the structure that keeps brand, domain, and code ownership within the company. The funds only cover establishment costs and do not constitute new recurring allocations.
Source: Public Information
ABAB AI Insight
Since rebranding from ETHLend to Aave, Stani Kulechov has long operated the protocol treasury and company products separately. In March 2026, the Aave Will Win framework was submitted for governance, aiming for 100% of product layer revenues to go into the DAO treasury, with Labs becoming a service provider around AAVE. In June, reports indicated that tokens held by Labs were discussed for sale at about a 30% discount, which he publicly denied, reiterating that protocol and GHO revenues go into tokens, with Labs not sharing in the income. This foundation proposal is a legal move along the same line: first separating "who has the right to sue" from the company's capabilities, rather than issuing another income share.
The capital path does not go through equity financing. In the first phase, the DAO only pays registration, legal, and appointment fees, with Labs formally waiving establishment grants. The real resource mobilization comes later: trademarks, main domain names, code repositories, and future service contracts' code, tools, models, and documentation will all need to be transferred to the foundation, then licensed back to products for free. The motivation is Kulechov's statement to eliminate the dual structure of tokens and equity. Service providers continue to use the DAO budget for development, but the ownership of the outputs will no longer default to the developers.
This can be compared to the Uniswap Foundation and several early Cayman or Swiss foundations: they can sign contracts, hire people, and appear in court, but have been criticized for accumulating discretionary power due to annual treasury allocations and proposal team appointments. Aave's text specifically eliminates these two items, does not set a recurring budget, and Labs and service providers cannot enter the board. The industry position is not to expand the lending market size but to shift brand control from a lab company to a memberless legal shell, while protocol parameters remain under token voting.
Structurally, it separates ownership from governance, representing a legal control point moving forward in the restructuring of the industry chain. The mechanism is that the DAO has no legal personality, can pay development fees, cannot register trademarks, and cannot enter court; the company has a personality, so trademarks remain with the company. A memberless foundation places the ability to hold and sue into the entity, while leaving appointments, disposals, and liquidations within AIP. If the transfer vote is denied, the shell remains, and the brand stays with the original holder. Whether control has changed depends on whether each subsequent phase is truly delivered.
ABAB News · Cognitive Laws
The treasury can make payments, but the court does not recognize tokens.
Whoever holds the brand has the defense in their hands.
Removing shareholders does not equal handing over the pocket.