Aave has recently been in a bit of a dispute. The core issue is as follows: Labs believes that the team has made significant contributions and therefore deserves a larger share of the profit distribution, holding tightly onto their cash flow. This logic seems reasonable at first glance, but the developments that follow are quite interesting.

What is the real idea behind Labs? Even if I don't distribute token profits to the community, users are already accustomed to my front-end interface and will continue to use it. To put it bluntly, it's all about relying on path dependency.

However, this changes the nature of the AAVE token. It is no longer an asset in the traditional sense—capable of generating cash flow and sharing in protocol growth. Instead, it resembles a liability—constantly facing the risk of backstabbing due to team conflicts of interest. The confidence of holders is wavering.

This power struggle seems to have won Labs a short-term cash flow, but in reality, it has lost more thoroughly: reputation damaged, community cohesion weakened, and the long-term valuation of the tokens has been severely overdrawn by this lack of trust. A lose-lose situation has formed.