Stani Kulechov has firmly pushed back against speculation that Aave would offload AAVE tokens to Kraken at a steep discount, while using the opportunity to clarify Aave’s economic model and tease the next evolution of its token design, dubbed Aavenomics 3.0.
Reports had suggested that Kraken was in advanced talks to invest 35,000 ETH in exchange for 250,000 AAVE and a 15% equity stake in Aave Group – a deal allegedly worth about 71 million dollars and implying a roughly 385 million dollar valuation for the company. The story framed the token component as being sold at around a 70% markdown from market prices.
Kulechov contested that interpretation. He stressed that there is “no way” Aave would agree to sell AAVE at such a discount, calling the framing of the alleged transaction misleading. While he did not deny that Aave has held discussions with large, long-term partners, he emphasized that those talks do not include fire-sale style token pricing.
To draw a clearer line, Kulechov distinguished between Aave Labs – the development entity – and the Aave DAO, which governs the protocol and controls its economics. According to him, any AAVE that might change hands in a potential strategic arrangement would come from an Aave Labs allocation, not from the DAO treasury or the protocol itself.
He reiterated that Aave Labs is only one actor within the broader Aave ecosystem. The DAO is the body that sets economic parameters, allocates resources, and determines how value flows back to AAVE holders. Aave Labs, in turn, is a service provider that builds and maintains the protocol under mandates and budgets approved by the DAO.
Kulechov explained that, under Aave’s current model, all revenue generated by the Aave Protocol and the GHO stablecoin ultimately accrues to AAVE via the DAO. This setup was formalized through the Aave Will Win (AWW) governance proposal, which reoriented the flow of value away from the development company and toward the tokenholders and protocol-controlled treasury.
The same AWW framework now extends to income from the Aave App, Aave Pro, and swap-related products. As a result, every dollar of protocol and product revenue is channeled toward the DAO and, by extension, the AAVE token, rather than being booked as revenue on the balance sheet of Aave Labs.
In practical terms, this means Aave Labs no longer directly retains protocol or application revenue. Instead, the company receives funding through DAO-approved grants or budgets, similar to how open-source foundations finance core contributors. This structure is designed to reduce conflicts of interest and make it clearer that value belongs to the protocol and its token, not to a single corporate entity.
According to Kulechov, Aave is currently generating around 134 million dollars in annualized revenue under this model. Those proceeds accumulate at the DAO level, strengthening its treasury and giving tokenholders more firepower to fund development, bootstrap new markets, or implement mechanisms that support AAVE’s long-term value.
He also noted that the Aave brand, the protocol’s software stack, and the key intellectual property created for the ecosystem have been effectively transferred to AAVE and its governance structure. That shift reinforces the idea that control and ownership sit with the community-governed DAO, not with a traditional company.
Parallel to these structural changes, Kulechov revealed that the team is working on Aavenomics 3.0 – the next major iteration of Aave’s token economic design. A core feature under consideration is an automated, rules-based AAVE buyback mechanism that would operate without discretionary intervention.
Aave already uses excess protocol revenue to buy back tokens, but the existing system typically depends on governance decisions for each initiative. Aavenomics 3.0 aims to codify this behavior into a predictable, on-chain mechanism, removing the need for frequent votes and making buybacks more transparent and mechanical.
Kulechov did not disclose when Aavenomics 3.0 will launch, how precisely it will be funded, or the magnitude of the potential buyback flows. However, the intention is to embed value capture more tightly into the protocol’s operation, aligning AAVE with the kinds of recurring capital return patterns more commonly seen in mature financial assets.
Beyond internal token mechanics, Aave is broadening its product strategy. Originally known primarily as a crypto lending and borrowing protocol, Aave is now placing increasing emphasis on tokenized real-world assets (RWAs) and a wider range of financial instruments.
The logic is straightforward: if traditional assets such as government bonds, private credit, and institutional-grade money market products are tokenized and used as collateral in DeFi, they could significantly increase the depth and stability of on-chain liquidity. That, in turn, would drive more deposits, higher borrowing volumes, and additional fee generation for the protocol.
This strategic shift aligns with recent analytical work that argues AAVE is currently underpriced relative to its potential cash flows. One research assessment valued Aave using a model commonly applied to fintech companies, projecting that the protocol could generate around 60 million dollars in revenue in 2026 and assigning a fair value range of roughly 80 to 100 dollars per token based on typical earnings multiples in traditional finance.
Under more optimistic assumptions – particularly a scenario in which regulatory clarity accelerates the adoption of tokenized treasuries, private credit, and money market instruments in DeFi – the same analysis suggested that a fair value closer to 175 dollars could become reasonable within a year. The authors emphasized that this is a model-derived estimate, not a guaranteed price target, and it hinges on RWAs significantly increasing Aave’s volumes and fee streams.
Kulechov’s recent clarifications helped stabilize market sentiment. After his statements, AAVE rallied to an intraday high of around 87.50 dollars before settling near 82 dollars. The token continues to trade under the shadow of earlier long-term targets, including a previously floated projection of several thousand dollars by the end of the decade, which framed AAVE as a high-beta play on the growth of DeFi as a whole.
From an investor’s perspective, the dispute over the alleged “cut-price” sale raises a broader issue: how should one interpret strategic token placements? In many early-stage or rapidly evolving networks, large allocations to exchanges, institutions, or strategic partners can look alarming, especially if rumors suggest discounts. Kulechov’s message is that any such deals, if they occur, should be seen in the context of long-term ecosystem building, not short-term liquidity grabs.
Strategic partners can bring more than capital: they can contribute user acquisition, regulatory expertise, new product rails, and distribution. For a protocol aiming to sit at the center of tokenized capital markets, aligning with major players in both crypto and traditional finance could be as important as the raw size of the DAO treasury or the circulating supply of AAVE.
At the same time, Aave’s governance architecture is designed to prevent any single deal from overriding the interests of the broader ecosystem. Because the DAO ultimately controls protocol parameters, incentives, and treasury management, governance token holders retain the final say over how value is distributed, which markets to support, and how aggressively to pursue new ventures such as RWAs or enterprise-grade offerings.
Aavenomics 3.0 is likely to sharpen that alignment further. An automated buyback mechanism, funded from protocol revenues, effectively creates a structural link between usage and token demand. If lending volumes, GHO adoption, and tokenized asset activity rise, the model implies a stronger and more predictable stream of capital being used to acquire AAVE on the market.
For tokenholders evaluating Aave’s long-term prospects, several factors now stand out as central: the continued growth of protocol revenue, the speed at which tokenized real-world assets gain traction on-chain, the effectiveness of Aavenomics 3.0 in translating cash flows into token value, and the ability of Aave Labs and the DAO to secure strategic partnerships without undermining confidence in fair, transparent token distribution.
Taken together, Kulechov’s comments are an attempt to reframe the narrative around Aave. Rather than a protocol desperate enough to unload its native asset at a massive discount, he presents Aave as a maturing financial network with a robust revenue base, a DAO-centric ownership model, and a roadmap aimed at integrating DeFi with institutional-grade, tokenized finance – with AAVE positioned as the key instrument through which that value is captured.