Aave Labs recently did something that upset DAO members — quietly switching the default token swap route from ParaSwap to CoWSwap on the frontend.

On the surface, this is just a technical integration issue. But the key question is: previously, swaps through ParaSwap generated a fee that flowed into the DAO treasury. Now, after switching to CoWSwap? That fee is gone, or rather, it flows elsewhere.

The numbers are a bit shocking — we're talking about a multi-million dollar annual revenue shrinkage. For a protocol proud of its community governance, this is somewhat embarrassing. DAO token holders have started questioning: Who is Aave Labs optimizing for? Is it for user experience, or is there another agenda?

The core conflict lies here: Aave Labs, as the main development team of the protocol, has the authority to decide on the frontend technical solutions. But such decisions directly impact the DAO’s economic model and revenue sharing. On one hand, Labs might have reasonable technical or user experience considerations; on the other hand, DAO members believe this unilateral change infringes on community interests and lacks sufficient governance discussion.

This incident reflects an old issue — the balance of power between project teams and DAOs. When is it necessary to seek DAO approval? What decisions fall within Labs’ authority? If these boundaries are blurred, conflicts are likely to arise. Between full decentralization and practical feasibility, DeFi protocols are still exploring.