Token Slumps 18% over Week, deeper than ETH, SOL, ADA

DeFi lending and borrowing protocol Aave’s governance fight is starting to cost investors wildly.

The AAVE token is down about 18% over the past seven days, making it the worst performer among the top 100 cryptocurrencies, even as bitcoin, ether and other large tokens trade flat to slightly higher.

The selloff stands out in a market that has otherwise stabilized, suggesting the pressure is specific to Aave rather than a broader risk-off move.

The drop follows a growing fight inside Aave governance over who controls the protocol’s brand, domains and public channels, as CoinDesk reported early last week. While that debate played out largely in forums and on social media last week, traders appear to be responding negatively to the uncertainty it has introduced around control, coordination and future decision-making.

Data tracked by blockchain sleuth Onchain Lens shows large holders acting decisively. One large holder sold roughly 230,000 AAVE — worth nearly $35 million at current prices — over a short window on Monday, swapping the tokens for ether derivatives and bitcoin and triggering a sharp intraday drop of nearly 10%.

The move added to selling pressure that had already been building since the governance proposal moved to a Snapshot vote.

At the same time, wallets tagged by onchain explorers to Aave founder Stani Kulechov suggests he has been buying into the decline.

Wallet data show Kulechov purchased roughly $12.6 million worth of AAVE over the past week at an average price of around $176, leaving him with an unrealized loss of about $2.2 million as the token slid further.

Founder buying is often read as a confidence signal, but in this case it has not been enough to offset broader selling.

Loading…

The divergence between AAVE and the rest of the market is striking. Bitcoin has held near $90,000, while ether, XRP and other majors have avoided similar drawdowns. That contrast suggests traders are not de-risking crypto broadly, but selectively reducing exposure to protocols facing internal uncertainty.

Unlike macro-driven selloffs, governance disputes create open-ended risk.

There is no clear timeline for resolution, and outcomes can reshape how value flows through a protocol. In Aave’s case, the question of who controls the brand and front-end gateways cuts directly into how the DAO exerts power offchain, an issue that does not lend itself to quick fixes.