Connect with us

Crypto World

Curve Finance Founder: DAO Disagreements Are Healthy

Published

on

Crypto Breaking News

Healthy governance in decentralized organizations hinges on disagreement, not uniform assent. That perspective, articulated by Dr. Michael Egorov, founder of Curve Finance, frames a rising discourse around the vitality of on-chain decision-making. In practice, disagreements are not only tolerated but expected as a feature of how these communities steer protocol direction through smart contracts and member voting. Two recent episodes illuminate this dynamic: a long-running governance debate over a grant to Swiss Stake AG—the company behind Curve’s development—and a December 2025 clash within the Aave ecosystem that turned on how fees from a CoW Swap integration should be allocated and who controls related intellectual property. Taken together, the episodes underscore that healthy friction can drive accountability and innovation in decentralized governance.

Key takeaways

  • Disagreement within DAOs is a sign of engagement and vitality, not dysfunction, according to key voices in the space.
  • The Swiss Stake AG grant controversy at Curve’s governance forum highlighted how large sums can provoke heated debate and turnout, with revised proposals attracting strong participation.
  • IP rights and attribution emerged as a flashpoint in the Aave ecosystem, illustrating how governance structures handle ownership of brand assets and code assets in a decentralizing environment.
  • Empirical observations from external analyses show that turnout in many DAOs remains concentrated among a relatively small, active cohort, prompting debates about inclusive participation.
  • Experts argue that giving DAOs clearer legal recognition could reduce disputes by enabling more straightforward interaction with traditional financial and corporate frameworks.

Tickers mentioned: $CRV, $AAVE

Sentiment: Neutral

Market context: The episodes sit within a broader trend of on-chain governance evolving from experimental phases toward more structured, if still highly contested, governance models. As DAOs experiment with funding, IP, and external integrations, the debate over how to balance participation with accountability is increasingly central to long-term sustainability.

Why it matters

DAO governance is quickly becoming a standard mechanism for steering open-source finance and non-custodial protocols. The Curve-related discussions demonstrate that communities are willing to revisit and revise proposals when members feel the financial or strategic stakes are high. In practice, the process involves not only voting but a cycle of proposal disclosure, debate, revision, and turnout that tests the resilience of on-chain governance. The central question is how to retain broad engagement while ensuring that proposals are not merely the product of a narrow cadre of active participants. In this sense, the Curve saga reflects a broader governance design challenge: how to translate on-chain votes into outcomes that stakeholders can trust and implement.

Advertisement

The Aave dispute adds another layer to the governance conversation: who owns the fruits of a protocol’s development and how that ownership translates into control of branding, IP, and related assets when the DAO delegates or distributes funds. The decoupling of development work from governance, and the tension over whether IP should reside in a DAO-controlled bucket or remain with a development entity, frames a key governance dilemma for DeFi projects that seek both rapid innovation and robust democratic oversight. Taken together, these cases suggest that the next phase of on-chain governance will involve not just votes but governance-in-ownership—how legal and organizational structures map onto code and communities.

Experts also argue that the current friction underscores the potential benefits of clearer legal recognition for DAOs. If DAOs could attain formal recognition—own business entities, hold bank accounts, and interact with traditional financial systems—the risks around disputes over ownership and control could be reduced. In Egorov’s view, the law has not yet fully caught up with the pace of decentralized technology, and greater regulatory clarity could help align on-chain governance with real-world operations without stifling innovation.

What to watch next

  • Follow the amendment cycle for the Swiss Stake AG grant, including any new drafting rounds or updated voting timelines in Curve’s governance portals (e.g., the amendment of the 2026 proposal).
  • Monitor Aave governance discussions surrounding IP governance and branding assets as the community debates next steps after the December 2025 discussions.
  • Track regulatory developments related to DAO recognition and access to traditional financial rails that could impact how DAOs interact with lawyers, banks, and custodians.
  • Observe whether future governance events increase turnout beyond the levels seen in prior analyses and how protocol communities address representation and inclusivity concerns.
  • Watch for new analyses or empirical studies on turnout and governance participation to gauge whether the anecdotal trends around active participation persist or shift over time.

Sources & verification

  • Curve governance page detailing Swiss Stake AG grant proposal and related discussions.
  • News coverage and archival material on the 2025 revised Swiss Stake AG grant proposal ( turnout and voting results).
  • Aave governance thread discussing CoW Swap integration and tokenholder questions about fees and IP control.
  • Cointelegraph coverage on Aave founder strategy after governance vote and the broader governance discourse surrounding IP and brand assets.
  • LamprosTech analysis on DAO voter turnout in 2025 and its implications for governance structures.

DAO governance in practice: what this means for the ecosystem

The debates around Swiss Stake AG’s Curve grant and the Aave IP dispute illustrate a broader trend: governance deliberations are increasingly treated as an ongoing process rather than a one-off decision. These cases underscore how communities must continuously negotiate the balance between ambitious, well-funded initiatives and the need for broad-based participation and accountability. The existence of firm positions on grants and IP signals that communities are not merely rubber-stamping proposals; they are dissecting the long-term implications of funding and ownership in a way that aligns incentives across actors—developers, token holders, and users.

Importantly, the discussions also highlight that governance is not purely about abstract vote counts. They touch on practical outcomes—how funds are allocated, who holds decision-making power over branding and code, and how disputes between on-chain governance and off-chain management are resolved. As these ecosystems mature, the interplay between what is coded on-chain and what is recognized legally off-chain will become a defining factor in the durability of these platforms. That ongoing evolution will require thoughtful design, transparent processes, and, perhaps most crucially, a willingness to admit missteps and iteratively improve governance structures to reflect changing technologies and community expectations.

Market reaction and key details

The ongoing governance episodes underscore a core reality of crypto markets: governance decisions can materially influence investor sentiment and strategic direction, even when the financial impact appears indirect. For participants, watching how the Curve ecosystem handles the Swiss Stake AG grant and how Aave navigates IP-related governance questions will offer insights into how other DAOs might approach similar challenges. The balance between active participation and practical execution remains delicate; successful governance will likely hinge on clear processes, transparent communications, and the ability to translate on-chain votes into concrete, auditable outcomes.

Advertisement

Risk & affiliate notice: Crypto assets are volatile and capital is at risk. This article may contain affiliate links. Read full disclosure

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

$1.3B Error Sparks Probe Into Weak Financial Oversight

Published

on

$1.3B Error Sparks Probe Into Weak Financial Oversight


Bithumb CEO admited past mistakes following the latest 620,000 BTC blunder which has prompting further investigations into system flaws.

South Korea’s financial authorities are facing criticism after failing to spot major flaws in Bithumb’s systems that led to an unprecedented Bitcoin error.

Despite repeated inspections by the Financial Services Commission (FSC) and the Financial Supervisory Service (FSS), a vulnerability remained that allowed a single employee to trigger massive coin transfers without detection.

Advertisement

Bithumb Crypto Mishap

According to Rep. Kang Min-guk of the People Power Party, the FSC reviewed Bithumb once in 2022 and twice in 2025, while the FSS carried out three inspections during the same period. Despite this, none identified discrepancies between actual holdings and accounting records.

On February 6, a promotional event went wrong when users were mistakenly credited with 2,000 BTC each instead of coins worth 2,000 won (worth approximately $1.38). This error caused the system to register a total of 620,000 bitcoins being “distributed” to users, which is far more than the exchange’s actual holdings of about 42,800 BTC.

As reported by The Korea Times, the country’s lawmakers said the mistake exposes deeper weaknesses in internal controls, ledger management, and regulatory supervision. Rep. Han Chang-min of the Social Democratic Party questioned whether regulators’ inspections were largely procedural and noted attempts to place responsibility on Bithumb.

The FSS has extended its probe through February and is investigating potential violations involving investor protection, anti-money laundering (AML), and system flaws.

Advertisement

Bithumb CEO Lee Jae-won acknowledged two smaller prior errors that were recovered, which the FSS will also review.

You may also like:

Meanwhile, an emergency team from the authorities and the Digital Asset eXchange Alliance (DAXA) is reviewing asset verification and internal controls at some of the country’s other prominent exchanges, such as Upbit, Coinone, Korbit, and GOPAX. Results are expected to influence both DAXA’s self-regulatory rules and future crypto legislation.

Lost and Found

The latest setback comes a month after the Gwangju District Prosecutors’ Office reported that Bitcoin seized in a criminal case had gone missing, but authorities have now recovered all 40 billion won worth of the lost cryptocurrency. Prosecutors said the 320.8 bitcoins were returned from the hacker’s electronic wallet to the office’s wallet on February 17, apparently voluntarily, after the hacker was unable to cash them out.

The coins had originally been confiscated from the daughter of a couple arrested for operating an illegal overseas gambling site worth 390 billion won between 2018 and 2021, who had converted their criminal proceeds into Bitcoin. Officials said the BTC were lost last August when prosecutors accidentally accessed a phishing site while checking the wallet, which exposed the funds.

Advertisement

Authorities have been tracking the hacker and monitoring domestic and international exchanges to prevent further losses.

SPECIAL OFFER (Exclusive)

Binance Free $600 (CryptoPotato Exclusive): Use this link to register a new account and receive $600 exclusive welcome offer on Binance (full details).

LIMITED OFFER for CryptoPotato readers at Bybit: Use this link to register and open a $500 FREE position on any coin!

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Bitwise CIO Warns the L1 Narrative May Be Dead Wrong

Published

on

Bitwise CIO Warns the L1 Narrative May Be Dead Wrong

The idea that Layer 1 blockspace has become a commodity may be premature, according to Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan, who argues that institutional behavior tells a very different story.

Hougan pushed back on what he described as an “increasing view in crypto that L1 blockspace is a commodity.

Institutional Capital Clusters on Top-Tier Chains as On-Chain Prediction Markets Redefine Information Edge

According to the Bitwise executive, if infrastructure were truly commoditized, capital and development would be evenly distributed across chains.

Instead, the vast majority of institutional building is taking place on very few chains (Ethereum, Solana, etc.).

Advertisement

“…basically, zero interest in building on the twentieth largest L1,” he explained.

Networks like Ethereum and Solana continue to dominate mindshare, liquidity, and developer activity, even as newer Layer 1s compete aggressively on fees and throughput. Hougan offered a simpler explanation for today’s low-fee environment.

“Top-tier L1s built more bandwidth than the market can use at the moment, so fees are rock-bottom.”

However, he cautioned that the current equilibrium may not last.

“The real question is what happens when demand scales as stablecoins/tokenization/DeFi grow into the trillions,” he wrote. “I’m not sure we know the answer yet.”

If blockchain-based financial infrastructure expands to support trillions of dollars in tokenized assets and on-chain settlement, today’s excess capacity could quickly tighten. Such an outcome could potentially reshape the economics of leading networks.

Prediction Markets as a “Reg FD for the Internet Age,” Hougan Argues

Beyond infrastructure, Hougan also weighed in on another contentious topic: insider trading concerns surrounding crypto-based prediction markets.

Advertisement

“The insider trading worries about prediction markets are basically backwards,” he wrote. “Prediction markets are a markets-based extension of Reg FD, putting us all on a level playing field.”

Regulation Fair Disclosure (Reg FD) was designed to prevent selective disclosure of material information to favored investors.

Hougan argues that prediction markets extend that principle by publicly pricing probabilities around major events.

He reflected on how hedge funds historically extracted “alpha” during pivotal legislative moments in Washington, D.C., hiring lobbyists and consultants to gather private intelligence from Capitol Hill.

Today, however, retail investors can track live probabilities on platforms like Polymarket, including markets tied to the potential passage of legislation such as the Clarity Act.

“For liquid markets, those odds are probably as good or better than anything the lobbying complex can provide. It’s a more even playing field,” Hougan said.

He acknowledged that risks remain, citing the need to aggressively police insider trading in prediction markets. Still, he emphasized that the impact balance is dramatically positive and egalitarian.

Advertisement

Therefore, there are two debates here:

  • Whether L1s are commoditized and
  • Whether prediction markets enable unfair advantages

Both debates revolve around how power is distributed in financial systems. According to Matt Hougan, institutional concentration on top-tier chains reflects economic reality rather than pure commoditization.

Meanwhile, open prediction markets represent a rare instance where information asymmetry may actually be shrinking.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

SEC Tells Broker-Dealers Stablecoins Can Count Toward Net Capital

Published

on

US Government, United States, Stablecoin

The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff last week clarified that broker-dealers can apply a 2% “haircut” to their stablecoin holdings without objection from the SEC.

Previously, broker-dealers were uncertain whether to apply a 100% haircut to their dollar-pegged stablecoins, meaning that they did not count the tokens toward their net capital under existing regulations.

The clarification came in the form of a posting by the staff of the SEC’s Division of Trading and Markets as a “Frequently Asked Questions Relating to Crypto Asset Activities and Distributed Ledger Technology.”

In response, Commissioner Hester Peirce said: In my view, a 100% haircut would be unnecessarily punitive given the underlying reserve assets that back payment stablecoins.”

Advertisement

The SEC requires broker-dealers to maintain minimum levels of net capital to meet financial obligations and absorb potential losses from market downturns and volatility, according to the staff’s clarification. 

US Government, United States, Stablecoin
The SEC’s response to frequently asked questions clarifying the 2% haircut rule for stablecoins held by broker-dealers. Source: SEC

For example, if a broker-dealer holds $100 million in stablecoins, a 2% haircut allows them to count $98 million toward their net capital requirements. Celebrating the clarification as positive for the financial system, Peirce said

“Stablecoins are essential to transacting on blockchain rails. Using stablecoins will make it feasible for broker-dealers to engage in a broader range of business activities relating to tokenized securities and other crypto assets.”  

The clarification means broker-dealers can hold stablecoins without worrying about excess net capital requirements, and can treat the tokens similarly to money market funds, vehicles that hold low-risk cash equivalents like US Treasurys and certificates of deposit. 

In a social media post over the weekend, Marc Baumann, CEO of crypto intelligence company 51, called the SEC staff communication “a big deal,” adding that “Wall Street can now actually hold and use stablecoins without destroying their capital ratios.”

Related: SEC leaders seek to clarify how tokenized securities interact with existing regulation

Advertisement

Stablecoins gain traction in the United States, but not all US officials are convinced

The stablecoin market cap recently hit a snag, falling by about $6 billion from the December 2025 peak of over $300 billion.

However, the market still has a $295 billion market cap, which has steadily grown since 2023, according to data from RWA.XYZ.

United States President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS stablecoin bill into law in July 2025, which was considered a landmark moment for the crypto industry.

US Government, United States, Stablecoin
President Trump signs the GENIUS bill into law. Source: Associated Press

The stablecoin market capitalization was just north of $252 billion at the time of signing and surged following the passage of the bill, according to data from RWA.XYZ.

Despite the meteoric surge in stablecoins and their implications for US dollar dominance in global financial markets, Neel Kashkari, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, maintains that stablecoins and crypto have no real use cases.

Advertisement

“I could send any one of you $5 with Venmo, or PayPal, or Zelle, so what is it that this magical stablecoin can do? ” he said on Thursday.

Magazine: How crypto laws changed in 2025 — and how they’ll change in 2026