Miraljam

Aave DAO generated $140M in 2025 as the brand control proposal failed in a December vote.
Stani Kulechov denied using recent $AAVE buys for voting power amid governance concerns.
Vote data showed concentrated power; top holders controlled 58% of total participation.
Aave’s founder publicly addressed internal governance tensions after a DAO vote ended, revealing record revenue and disputed token purchases. The comments came on X after a December DAO vote rejected a proposal on brand asset control. Stani Kulechov explained why the vote failed, how the DAO earned $140 million this year, and why his AAVE purchase did not influence voting.
DAO Revenue Reaches $140 Million
Kulechov stated that the Aave DAO generated $140 million in revenue during 2025, exceeding the previous three years combined. He emphasized that AAVE token holders control the treasury holding these funds. Notably, he said this detail received little attention during recent governance debates.
According to Kulechov, the revenue milestone occurred as DAO members debated economic alignment between Aave Labs and token holders. However, he acknowledged that Aave Labs failed to clearly explain how its products create value for the DAO. He said the company plans to address this gap more directly going forward.
The revenue disclosure followed a rejected proposal seeking to transfer Aave brand assets to the DAO. Those assets included trademarks, social media accounts, repositories, and the aave.com domain. The proposal aimed to align economic risk with control, according to its supporters.
However, voting data showed limited backing. Snapshot results recorded 55.29% voting against the proposal, 41.21% abstaining, and 3.5% voting in favor. The vote closed in late December after several days of public debate across governance forums.
Alignment and Token Purchase Concerns
Following the vote, Kulechov addressed questions about his relationship with token holders and Aave Labs. He described the debate as productive, despite its intensity. He also stated that disagreement remains a normal feature of decentralized governance.
Kulechov committed to clarifying how Aave Labs activities benefit the DAO and AAVE holders. He said future disclosures would explain revenue flows, integrations, and product value creation more explicitly. However, he did not outline specific timelines or mechanisms.
Attention also focused on Kulechov’s recent $15 million AAVE purchase. Critics questioned the timing as the purchases occurred shortly before the vote closed. In response, Kulechov said he did not use those tokens to vote.
“These tokens were not used to vote on the recent proposal,” he wrote on X. He added that influencing the outcome was never his intention. He described the purchase as a personal investment tied to long-term conviction.
On-chain data showed the tokens were acquired at an average price near $176. The purchases occurred as AAVE’s price declined during the DAO dispute. However, no evidence showed that those tokens participated in the Snapshot vote.
Related:Wintermute Signals No Vote as Aave Governance Rift Deepens
Vote Fallout, Allegations, and Broader DAO Concerns
Despite Kulechov’s statement, skepticism persisted within the community. Some DAO members argued that optics and timing still mattered, even without direct voting use. Others focused on structural governance risks rather than the founder’s intent.
Wintermute founder Evgeny Gaevoy confirmed that his firm voted against the proposal. He later said he expects a clearer value capture proposal from Aave Labs next year. His comments followed the vote’s conclusion.
Additional criticism centered on voting power concentration. According to Snapshot data cited by DAO members, the top three voters controlled over 58% of total voting power. The largest voter held 27.06%, while aci.eth controlled 18.53%.
The proposal also raised questions about who actually wrote it. Former Aave Labs CTO Ernesto Boado was listed as the author, but he later said it moved forward without his approval, which hurt trust within the community.
At the same time, accusations surfaced about how fees were handled through a CoW Swap integration. A DAO member, EzR3aL, claimed some fees were sent to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs. These claims added to the backlash during the vote, even though the proposal was ultimately rejected by a wide margin.
Kulechov denied allegations that he controlled the vote outcome. He reiterated that the ecosystem supports multiple service providers. He also said Aave Labs would continue collaborating with teams building on the protocol.
The DAO vote ended without transferring brand control, but debate continued across forums and social platforms. Throughout, Kulechov maintained that clearer communication remains necessary.
Meanwhile, Aave’s DAO generated $140 million in 2025 while rejecting a proposal to shift brand control. Kulechov denied using his $15 million AAVE purchase for voting and pledged clearer alignment disclosures. The address combined record revenue, disputed governance processes, and unresolved questions about DAO communication.

$AAVE

Ethereum adoption grows as banks test tokenized assets and on-chain settlement models.
Institutional Ether holdings rise while tokenized treasuries and stablecoins expand.
Analysts split as bullish price targets clash with warnings of a possible bull trap.
Ethereum’s expanding role in institutional finance drew attention this week after comments on CNBC’s Power Lunch linked its future price to Wall Street’s push toward tokenized assets and on-chain settlement. Speaking on the program, Tom Lee, co-founder and head of research at Fundstrat Global Advisors, said Ether could reach between $7,000 and $9,000 by early 2026 as financial institutions adopt blockchain infrastructure.
He tied Ethereum’s investment case to its growing use as settlement and issuance technology for traditional markets. Lee said major firms want to tokenize assets, pointing to initiatives involving Robinhood and BlackRock. He said this shift aims to improve efficiency while anchoring real-world financial activity directly on Ethereum’s network.
Institutional Tokenization Push
Lee linked Ethereum’s outlook to its role as infrastructure rather than speculative technology. He said Wall Street aims to tokenize securities and settle trades on-chain, which could expand Ethereum’s long-term utility.
He added that deeper adoption could eventually support an Ether price near $20,000, though his near-term outlook focused on early 2026. The remarks came as tokenization efforts gain traction across traditional finance.
Institutional accumulation has also grown. BitMine Immersion Technologies, an Ether-focused treasury firm chaired by Lee, reported holdings of 4,066,062 $ETH , according to CoinGecko data. The disclosure reflects growing corporate exposure to Ethereum.
At the same time, tokenized real-world assets expanded sharply in 2025. The total market value reached approximately $18.9 billion, up from roughly $5.6 billion at the start of the year.
Tokenized Assets and Network Dominance
Data from RWA.xyz indicates that U.S. Treasury debt is the largest tokenized asset class at about $8.5 billion. Commodities followed with approximately $3.4 billion in value. Ethereum hosts most tokenized real-world assets on public blockchains. By late December 2025, the network supported more than $12 billion in tokenized assets, exceeding BNB Chain, Solana, and Arbitrum.
Ethereum also leads stablecoin issuance. Roughly $170 billion in stablecoins circulate on the network, reinforcing its position as the main settlement layer for dollar-based on-chain activity.
Institutional interest continued in December when Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation announced plans to tokenize a portion of U.S. Treasury securities. The effort will run through its Depository Trust Company subsidiary on the Canton Network.
DTCC subsidiaries processed about $3.7 quadrillion in securities transactions last year. The move signals confidence in blockchain-based settlement for core financial markets.
Related: Ethereum’s Growing State Threatens Long-Term Decentralization
Analyst Speculation: Diverging Price Outlooks
Lee also expressed confidence in Bitcoin, calling it a genuine store of value with a $200,000 target over the next year. He said recent underperformance versus gold reflects a temporary phase. Still, not all analysts share the bullish view on Ether. Benjamin Cowen said Ethereum may struggle if Bitcoin enters a sustained bear market.
Speaking on the Bankless podcast, Cowen said a Bitcoin downturn would likely limit Ethereum’s upside. He warned that a move above Ethereum’s $4,946 all-time high from August 2025 could become a bull trap.
Fundstrat Capital has also projected volatility ahead. The firm expects a meaningful drawdown in the first half of 2026, with Bitcoin potentially falling 35% to $60,000–$65,000 and Ether declining to $1,800–$2,000.
As Wall Street accelerates tokenization while analysts debate market cycles, one question remains: can Ethereum’s growing institutional role outweigh broader crypto market risks?
$BTC
$ETH

Bitcoin price remains locked in a tight range between $80,000 and $90,000 as liquidity builds on both sides, increasing the likelihood of a sharp breakout once the balance breaks.

Bitcoin ( $BTC ) price continues to trade in a clearly defined range, with price action compressing between high-time-frame support at $80,000 and high-time-frame resistance at $90,000. Despite multiple attempts to push higher, Bitcoin has failed to break through resistance, keeping the market in a state of balance.

This prolonged consolidation suggests that liquidity is building, a condition that often precedes a significant directional move.

Bitcoin price key technical points

Strong resistance cluster near $90,000, reinforced by multiple technical confluences.

Range support holds at $80,000, where resting liquidity remains untested.

Liquidity buildup increases breakout potential, though direction remains undecided.

Bitcoin’s current range-bound behavior is defined by a dense resistance confluence near $90,000. This zone combines the VWAP, a key daily resistance level, and the 0.618 Fibonacci retracement, creating a technically heavy area that has repeatedly rejected price. Such confluence zones often act as reversal points, particularly when price approaches them without strong volume or momentum.

Over the past several sessions, Bitcoin has tested this resistance region multiple times, only to be rejected on each attempt. These failures indicate that sellers remain active at higher levels and that buyers have yet to demonstrate the conviction needed to push price into a higher value area. As a result, price continues to rotate lower after each rejection, reinforcing the broader consolidation structure.

Below current price, a series of swing lows has formed, creating pockets of resting liquidity. Resting liquidity refers to areas where stop orders and unfilled orders remain, often acting as magnets for price. In Bitcoin’s case, much of this liquidity sits closer to the $80,000 support level, which has not yet been fully tested during the current range.

This imbalance between heavy resistance overhead and relatively untapped liquidity below increases the probability of a rotation back toward range support. Markets often move toward areas where liquidity is concentrated, particularly when attempts to break resistance fail repeatedly. A move toward $80,000 would allow Bitcoin to clear this resting liquidity and maintain the integrity of the broader range.

From a market auction perspective, Bitcoin is currently in a state of balance. Buyers and sellers are largely matched, resulting in sideways price action rather than directional movement. This balance, however, is unlikely to persist indefinitely, especially as Bitcoin bulls face a critical test through Lugano’s real-world payments push, while price continues to compress within the range, volatility contracts, and pressure builds.

Importantly, range-bound conditions often lead to false breakouts before a sustained move develops. Short-term breakouts above or below resistance may occur as liquidity is tested, but without follow-through and acceptance, these moves can quickly reverse. This dynamic is common in mature consolidation phases where market participants are positioned on both sides of the range.

A decisive breakout will require acceptance outside of the range. On the upside, this would mean Bitcoin reclaiming and holding above the $90,000 resistance zone on a closing basis, supported by strong volume. Such a move would indicate that buyers have absorbed sell-side pressure and that price is ready to explore higher levels.

On the downside, a clean break below $80,000 would signal acceptance at lower prices and likely accelerate selling as resting liquidity is taken out. Until one of these scenarios unfolds, Bitcoin’s price action is expected to remain rotational.

What to expect in the coming price action

Bitcoin is likely to remain range-bound between $80,000 and $90,000 as long as resistance holds and support remains intact. Continued liquidity buildup increases the probability of a breakout, but traders should remain cautious of short-term false moves until price establishes acceptance beyond the current range.

Most traders don’t lose because they’re stupid.
They lose because they repeat the same invisible mistakes—over and over—until the market teaches them a painful lesson.

I’ve paid those fees. Expensive ones.
Not just in money, but in time, confidence, and missed opportunities.

This article isn’t theory.
It’s a distilled set of real trading lessons learned the hard way, so you can skip the scars and move faster toward consistency.

If you want to survive—and actually thrive—in crypto, read this carefully.

➤ Lesson ①: Being Right Means Nothing Without Risk Management

You can predict direction correctly and still blow your account.

✔︎ Over-leveraging
✔︎ No stop-loss
✔︎ “It will come back” mindset

All of these turn good analysis into bad outcomes.

Rule:
➜ Risk small. Stay alive. Compounding only works if you survive long enough.

➤ Lesson ②: The Market Doesn’t Care About Your Opinion

The moment you say “This coin is undervalued”, you’ve already lost objectivity.

◆ Price is truth
◆ Charts don’t lie—egos do

I learned to stop arguing with the market and start listening to it.

Rule:
➜ Trade what you see, not what you believe.

➤ Lesson ③: Overtrading Is a Silent Account Killer

More trades ≠ more profit.

✔︎ Boredom trades
✔︎ Revenge trades
✔︎ Forcing setups

Most losses came not from bad setups—but from unnecessary trades.

Rule:
➜ Fewer trades. Higher quality. Clear conditions only.

➤ Lesson ④: Emotions Are More Dangerous Than Bad Analysis

Fear exits good trades early.
Greed keeps bad trades open too long.

I realized something critical:
Your psychology is your real strategy.

◆ If you can’t follow your plan, the plan doesn’t matter.

Rule:
➜ If emotions control execution, no strategy will save you.

➤ Lesson ⑤: Consistency Beats One Big Win

I chased home runs.
The market punished me for it.

What actually worked?

✔︎ Small, repeatable edges
✔︎ Same setup, again and again
✔︎ Boring discipline

Rule:
➜ Professionals aim for consistency. Gamblers aim for excitement.

➤ Lesson ⑥: Learning Never Stops in Crypto

The market evolves.
Strategies decay.
What worked last cycle may fail in the next.

◆ Adaptation > prediction

Rule:
➜ Stay a student, or the market will humble you.

Crypto trading isn’t about intelligence—it’s about discipline, patience, and self-awareness.

The hard lessons cost me money.
You don’t have to pay the same price.

If this saved you even one bad trade, it was worth writing.

➤ If you found value here, comment your biggest trading lesson and share this with someone who’s still learning the hard way.

$BTC $ETH $XRP