Aave Founder Rejects Reported Kraken Stake Deal at $385… |

Why Did The Reported Aave Valuation Trigger Pushback?

Aave founder Stani Kulechov pushed back against a report that Kraken parent firm Payward is in talks to buy a 15% stake in the protocol at a $385 million valuation, a figure that would place the deal at a steep discount to the AAVE token’s fully diluted valuation. The reported valuation became controversial because it would imply Aave is being priced far below the value reflected in its publicly traded token. For a protocol that remains one of the largest decentralized lending markets on Ethereum, that gap immediately raised questions over whether any private transaction involving AAVE tokens, Aave Labs, or strategic partners could reset investor expectations around the protocol. Kulechov rejected that framing directly. “First off, there is NO WAY we’d sell AAVE at a 70% discount lol,” he said in an X post on Thursday. His comment did not fully deny that Aave Labs, the for-profit research and development firm that initially built the protocol, could sell some of its accumulated AAVE tokens. Instead, he said the reported structure and valuation were inaccurate. “Aave Labs owns an allocation of AAVE that multiple market participants have discussed purchasing, directly or indirectly, through deeper long-term partnerships,” Kulechov said, adding that the report’s framing was inaccurate.

What Is Really At Stake For Aave Holders?

The issue is not only whether Payward buys tokens or whether Aave Labs enters a deeper partnership with Kraken. The larger question is how private token allocations are valued when a decentralized protocol has a public market price, a DAO treasury, active governance, and protocol revenue flowing to token holders. Aave is generating $134 million in annualized revenue, according to Kulechov, with that revenue currently directed toward the Aave DAO. That matters because any private transaction priced too far below the token’s market-implied value could be viewed by holders as dilutive to sentiment, even if it does not directly change token supply. The concern is sharper because Aave has spent the past year trying to repair governance alignment between Aave Labs and the DAO. Last year, Aave Labs drew criticism after redirecting website interface swap fees to itself instead of the DAO. The dispute led to a wider governance challenge, departures by core contributors, and proposals calling for the DAO to take control of Aave Labs’ intellectual property. Kulechov responded earlier this year with the “Aave Will Win” proposal, which passed with about 75% support in April 2026. The plan redirected 100% of protocol and Aave-branded product revenue to the DAO and AAVE token holders, while the DAO approved multi-year funding for Aave Labs.

Investor Takeaway

The reported valuation dispute is important because AAVE holders are watching whether private strategic deals respect the market value and governance structure of the protocol. After last year’s DAO tensions, any token sale involving Aave Labs is likely to face close scrutiny.

How Does Kraken Fit Into Aave’s Strategy?

Kraken and Aave already have a working relationship. Last year, Kraken’s Layer 2 network Ink launched Tydro, a white-label instance of Aave designed to serve as the blockchain’s core lending infrastructure. That history makes the idea of deeper cooperation plausible, even if the reported valuation is disputed. For Kraken, a closer relationship with Aave could strengthen its role in onchain lending, collateral markets, and Layer 2 financial infrastructure. For Aave, a major exchange partner could support distribution, liquidity, and institutional access. The timing is sensitive. Aave’s total value locked has fallen after the Kelp DAO exploit in April. Aave was not directly attacked, but the exploiter used Aave to convert stolen rsETH into other assets. The incident forced the protocol to revisit risk controls and led to an updated risk framework earlier this month. For a lending protocol, that kind of secondary exposure matters. Even when the protocol itself is not compromised, its markets can become part of the execution path after an exploit elsewhere. That places more pressure on risk parameters, collateral controls, liquidity limits, and governance speed.

What Does Aavenomics 3.0 Change?

Kulechov also used his response to point toward the next phase of Aave’s token economics. He said no protocol or product revenue goes to Aave Labs and that the company is a service provider to the DAO responsible for building and growing Aave. “We haven’t shared much on this yet, but the Aave team is designing Aavenomics 3.0, which includes a new automated and non-discretionary buyback mechanism. More on this later,” Kulechov said. He added: “Everyone at Aave Labs and Aave DAO works for $AAVE.” The buyback comment is significant because it points to a more formal link between protocol revenue and tokenholder value. If implemented through an automated and non-discretionary process, Aavenomics 3.0 could reduce governance uncertainty around how revenue is returned or reinvested. That would also help answer one of the market’s core questions about Aave: whether its strong protocol revenue, governance changes, and product expansion can translate into clearer token economics. Aave released v4 in March, including an updated hub-and-spoke model, giving the protocol another product cycle at the same time its governance and valuation are being tested. The near-term debate around a reported Kraken-linked stake may fade if no deal materializes at the disputed valuation. The more durable issue is whether Aave can keep Labs, the DAO, strategic partners, and token holders aligned as the protocol expands. Kulechov’s response makes clear that any deal seen as undervaluing AAVE will face immediate resistance from the top of the ecosystem.