Aave community fractures over who owns the brand
A power struggle within Aave’s ecosystem has escalated into a full-blown community split over control of the protocol’s brand and related assets. The conflict pits the Aave DAO — token holders who govern the protocol — against Aave Labs, the centralized developer firm that builds much of Aave’s tech.
The flashpoint was the integration of CoW Swap, a trade-execution tool, which routed swap fees to Aave Labs instead of the DAO treasury. Labs says those revenues reflect interface-level development work it performed; critics say the arrangement exposed a deeper fault line: who actually controls the Aave brand — the community that bears economic risk or the private builders who execute development.
That brand question matters: Aave’s network has over $33 billion locked, and the dispute now extends to ownership of trademarks, domains, social accounts and other branded assets. DAO supporters argue transferring brand control into community hands would align governance with economic risk-bearers, prevent unilateral control by a private company and keep Aave’s identity squarely community-run. Backers of Aave Labs counter that stripping brand control from builders could slow development, complicate partnerships, and make accountability for running and promoting the protocol blurrier.
The proposal has sharply divided the community, with rival camps offering very different visions for the protocol’s future. — Margaux Nijkerk & Shaurya Malwa
Ethereum prepares “Glamsterdam” and enshrined proposer-builder separation
After last month’s Fusaka upgrade — which reduced node costs — Ethereum developers are already planning the next major change, nicknamed “Glamsterdam.” The name fuses two simultaneous upgrades across Ethereum’s layers: Amsterdam on the execution layer (where transactions and smart contracts live) and Gloas on the consensus layer (which coordinates validators and finalizes blocks).
Central to Glamsterdam is enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS), tracked as EIP-7732. ePBS would bake into the protocol a formal split between nodes that build blocks and those that propose them. Today, that split largely depends on off-chain relays, an arrangement that introduces trust assumptions and centralization risks.
Under ePBS, block builders would assemble and cryptographically seal blocks; proposers would pick the highest-paying sealed block without seeing or tampering with its contents. Transactions would only be revealed after finalization, reducing opportunities for manipulation tied to maximal extractable value (MEV) — the additional profit actors can earn by reordering, inserting, or censoring transactions. — Margaux Nijkerk
Bitcoin and quantum computing: risk horizon expands
The Bitcoin developer conversation has shifted from “if” quantum computing could threaten the network to “how long it would take to respond” if it ever did. Veteran developer Jameson Lopp underscored that while quantum computers are unlikely to break Bitcoin in the near term, preparing meaningful defenses would not be trivial.
“No, quantum computers won't break Bitcoin in the near future,” Lopp posted. “We'll keep observing their evolution. Yet, making thoughtful changes to the protocol (and an unprecedented migration of funds) could easily take 5 to 10 years.”
The takeaway: even distant technical risks can influence long-term confidence in Bitcoin. As institutions increasingly treat bitcoin as a multi-year holding, discussions about remote threats like quantum computing can affect allocation decisions and market pricing of uncertainty. — Shaurya Malwa
EigenLayer proposes fee model to strengthen EIGEN tokenomics
EigenLayer’s foundation has put forward a governance proposal to reshape incentives for the EIGEN token by tying token value more directly to productive network activity and fees. The plan would introduce a fee model that routes revenue from Actively Validated Services (AVS) rewards and EigenCloud services back to EIGEN holders.
AVSs are services that rely on EigenLayer’s security model — staked tokens and active operators — and the team argues the fee-sharing mechanism would better align token economics with real network usage. The proposal is pitched as a win-win: stakers and operators backing active services earn more, AVSs obtain needed capital, and EIGEN benefits from improved long-term value accrual. — Margaux Nijkerk
Read more on each story from the original reporting.
Read more AI-generated news on: undefined/news
