Michael Egorov, founder of the decentralized finance (DeFi) protocol Curve Finance, has publicly stated that internal disagreements within Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) are not a flaw but a sign of a healthy and functioning governance system. In an interview with Cointelegraph, Egorov argued that debates and pushback on proposals indicate active member participation and a system working as intended.
Egorov pointed to two recent high-profile examples to illustrate his point. The first was a 2024 Curve DAO proposal for a $6.3 million grant to Swiss Stake AG, the protocol's core developer. The initial proposal faced significant community opposition. However, after being revised and resubmitted in December 2025, it achieved a remarkable over 80% voter turnout among DAO members.
This level of participation is exceptional in the DeFi space. As noted by analytics from LamprosTech, most DAOs struggle with voter apathy, typically seeing turnout rates below 15%, with decision-making power often concentrated in a small, active group. Egorov attributes Curve's higher engagement to its system that encourages token holders to lock up their CRV tokens for extended periods, fostering long-term commitment to governance beyond short-term profit motives.
The second example cited involves rival DeFi protocol Aave. In December 2025, a governance dispute erupted between Aave Labs and the Aave DAO concerning fees generated from an integration with the CoW Swap aggregator. Community members objected to fees being directed to a wallet controlled by Aave Labs, sparking a broader debate over intellectual property control in DeFi. A subsequent proposal to bring Aave's brand assets and IP under DAO control ultimately failed, highlighting the complexities of such governance challenges.
Egorov views DAOs as a novel model of human organization, blending elements of companies and sovereign states, where internal "political parties" debate protocol governance. However, he acknowledges a critical practical limitation: DAOs currently cannot easily interact with the traditional legal and financial world without relying on centralized legal structures like business entities or bank accounts. Control over off-chain assets like IP becomes a recurring governance issue due to this gap.
He concludes that while DAOs excel at governing on-chain elements, centralized entities may still be better suited for managing off-chain structures. Legal recognition for DAOs—allowing them to own entities and bank accounts—could help mitigate many current disputes, but the legal framework has yet to catch up with the technology.
