Disagreements inside decentralized organizations are often framed as instability. But Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov sees it differently. In his view, visible friction inside a Decentralized Autonomous Organization is proof that the system is alive.
Key takeaways
- Michael Egorov argues that disagreement inside a DAO signals healthy participation, not dysfunction.
- Governance apathy – not conflict – is the biggest threat to decentralized organizations.
- A controversial grant vote within Curve DAO drew over 80% turnout, far above the industry average, showing strong engagement.
- Egorov believes clearer legal recognition of DAOs could reduce off-chain disputes and improve operational stability.
Egorov argues that the real danger to any DAO is not internal conflict, but silence. When proposals pass without scrutiny and debates fade, governance becomes hollow. According to him, a DAO where no one objects is often a DAO where no one is paying attention.
Engagement Over Apathy
For Egorov, heated discussions and divided votes reflect active participation. Members who challenge proposals demonstrate that they care about the protocol’s long-term direction instead of simply approving decisions by default.
He warns that automatic approvals can signal concentration of influence or disengagement from token holders. In contrast, open disputes force proposals to evolve, improve, and better reflect community interests.
Curve’s Governance Test
Within the Curve DAO ecosystem, Egorov points to a controversial $6.3 million grant proposal for Swiss Stake AG, the project’s core development entity. The initial version faced resistance from token holders, triggering revisions and renewed debate.
When the proposal was resubmitted in late 2025, participation surged. More than 80% of eligible voters took part – far above the roughly 15% turnout typically seen across the industry. For Egorov, that level of engagement was evidence that friction can strengthen governance rather than weaken it.
Aave’s Fee Dispute Sparks Broader Questions
He also referenced tensions inside Aave DAO in 2025, when disagreements emerged between Aave Labs and the community over revenue from a CoW Swap integration. What began as a fee dispute quickly expanded into a larger debate over intellectual property, branding rights, and control of protocol assets.
Rather than viewing the conflict as dysfunction, Egorov sees it as a natural evolution of decentralized governance – similar to political parties competing within a sovereign state.
The Legal Gap
Despite praising on-chain governance mechanisms, Egorov acknowledges structural weaknesses. Most DAOs lack clear legal recognition, limiting their ability to open bank accounts, sign contracts, or operate in traditional business environments. He suggests that many disputes could be minimized if DAOs were granted formal legal status.
At the same time, Curve’s governance model attempts to align incentives by encouraging long-term token locking. By committing capital for extended periods, participants are pushed to think beyond short-term gains and focus on sustainable development.
In Egorov’s framework, disagreement is not a red flag. It is a sign that a decentralized system is functioning as intended – noisy, contested, and actively shaped by its community rather than quietly controlled behind closed doors.
The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.
AuthorRelated stories
Next article
Source: https://coindoo.com/governance-conflict-proves-daos-are-alive-according-to-curve-finance-founder/
