#代币经济学与设计 Opposing Wintermute's proposal, I am reminded of the most painful lesson I have learned from being cut.

This matter with Aave essentially exposes a fundamental flaw that all governance tokens cannot avoid—**the inherent shortcomings in tokenomics design**. As Wintermute clearly states: the proposal lacks details, it's unclear how governance will be executed, and the profit model is also unclear. This is a classic case of "knee-jerk decision-making."

Over my years of on-chain experience, I have learned a hard lesson: when the expectations between core stakeholders (like the Labs team) and token holders are completely misaligned, no matter how many governance proposals there are, they are useless. What does AAVE Labs want? Brand control, influence, and to continue reaping growth dividends. What do token holders want? Dividends, returns, and token appreciation. These two demands are fundamentally conflicting.

What’s even more painful is that most projects, when designing their tokens, haven't really thought this through. They either treat the token as a fundraising tool or as a community gimmick—they simply don't want to seriously answer a question: **Where is the cash flow of this token? Why are token holders worth something?** Without this answer, even the most advanced governance framework can't save the project.

So when I see institutions willing to vote against, I actually feel more at ease. It shows that some people are still serious about it, rather than passively going with the flow.