More noteworthy in these discussions is how much of Aave's success over the years is attributable to Aave Labs/Avara, and the sheer challenge of operating a true company as a DAO. DAOs are structurally incapable of delivering competitive software. Every product decision becomes a governance proposal, every directional shift requires consensus among token holders, and every rapidly growing opportunity dies in forum posts while competitors have already acted. In fact, if Aave had been governed entirely as a DAO from the beginning, it would have been surpassed years ago by teams capable of making decisions in hours, not weeks or months. Stani and Aave Labs built the brand, user experience, integrations, and security infrastructure, and token holders now claim economic ownership of these assets. They were able to do this because they operated with startup-level autonomy, not DAO-level bureaucracy. World-class software isn't built by committees of contractors and rotating service providers, but by tightly integrated internal teams with deep background knowledge, a shared vision, and the ability to accumulate expertise over many years. Finally, restricting Labs and depriving it of its right to share in the protocol's revenue is objectively unfair and, in the long run, detrimental to both the DAO itself and Aave token holders.