Recently, the leading DeFi lending protocol Aave has been involved in quite a controversy. The issue started with the fee distribution after integrating CoW Swap—this revenue was directed to the development team instead of the DAO treasury, escalating into a dispute over the ownership of brand assets. Who truly controls the trademarks, domain names, and community accounts?

At first glance, it seems to be a problem of insufficient decentralization, but in reality, it exposes a deeper structural dilemma. Many established DeFi protocols that have entered maturity have their founding teams already financially free, yet the community and internal stakeholders continue to demand growth, while the incentive mechanisms have not kept pace. This misalignment makes conflicts almost inevitable.

Interestingly, this discussion has refocused attention on the path MakerDAO took three years ago. The SubDAO approach that MakerDAO implemented back then now appears to be more forward-looking than Aave’s current method. The choices made by these two veteran projects reflect two different philosophies in DeFi protocols regarding "authority and responsibility structures" and "long-term incentives"—one being reactive, the other proactively evolving. Although this controversy did not result in a governance proposal, it indeed provided the entire market with an opportunity to reevaluate these issues.