Lending protocol Aave has recently caused a stir in the community. The core issue is quite sensitive—who is truly in control? The DAO or Aave Labs, the company behind it?

Here's what happened. Aave integrated the trading tool CoW Swap, which is no problem. But the new source of fees has a different destination—some of it flows to Aave Labs instead of the DAO treasury. Some community members were unhappy about this. Aave Labs explained that these revenues come from frontend and product development work, which are at the application level, not the protocol itself, so they don't need to go into the DAO wallet.

It sounds reasonable. But criticism quickly escalated. People began asking deeper questions—who owns the trademarks, domain names, community accounts, and all brand assets of an ecosystem valued at over $33 billion? This is not just about money; it's about power.

Supporters of Aave Labs maintaining control over brand assets argue that centralized management can lead to higher operational efficiency and enhance product competitiveness. But others believe that if it truly is a decentralized autonomous organization, then why should a company hold all the brand assets?

This controversy actually reflects the deeper contradiction within the entire crypto industry—how do you find a balance between the ideal of decentralization and the practical need for efficient execution?