分组1 - Aave's community is experiencing a significant divide over control of the protocol's brand and assets, highlighting the tension between decentralized governance and centralized development teams [1] - The dispute was sparked by Aave's integration of CoW Swap, which directed swap fees to Aave Labs instead of the DAO treasury, raising questions about brand control and economic risk alignment [1] - Supporters of DAO control argue it would ensure governance rights align with those bearing economic risk, while opponents believe it could hinder development and accountability [1] 分组2 - Ethereum developers are advancing plans for the "Glamsterdam" upgrade, which includes the Amsterdam and Gloas upgrades on its execution and consensus layers respectively [2] - The core proposal of Glamsterdam is the enshrined Proposer-Builder Separation (ePBS), aimed at preventing any single actor from controlling transaction inclusion and order [2] - ePBS would enhance security by allowing block builders to assemble blocks without revealing their contents to proposers, thereby reducing manipulation opportunities related to maximal extractable value (MEV) [2]

Core Viewpoint - Aave is experiencing internal governance conflicts regarding the diversion of swap fees to Aave Labs instead of the Aave DAO treasury, raising concerns about potential losses for AAVE holders and the implications of privatization [1][3][7]. Group 1: Revenue Diversion Issues - Aave DAO members are questioning the revenue diversion to Aave Labs, which is reportedly moving swap fees to a private address controlled by Aave Labs, potentially costing the DAO over $10 million in annual revenue [3][7]. - The integration with CoW Swap has introduced user fees of 15-25 basis points, which are directed to Aave Labs rather than the DAO treasury, contrasting with previous arrangements where surplus revenue flowed to the DAO without user fees [3][7]. Group 2: Community Reactions and Concerns - Marc Zeller, founder of the Aave Chan Initiative, expressed that the situation is "extremely concerning," labeling it as "stealth privatization" of 10% of the Aave DAO's revenue, and raised questions about future revenue from other features [4][7]. - The community is debating the ownership of Aave's revenue and whether DAO-funded service providers have fiduciary duties to token holders, highlighting the ongoing internal conflict over the revenue loss [7]. Group 3: Aave Labs' Position - Stani Kulechov, founder of Aave, refuted claims of stolen revenue, stating that previous ParaSwap fees were a "discretionary surplus" and emphasized that Aave Labs incurs costs for engineering and security, justifying its monetization of products [5][6]. - Aave Labs acknowledged poor communication with the community regarding the changes but defended the decision to switch to CoW Swap, citing improved execution prices and enhanced protection against MEV attacks as key motivations [6].

Core Viewpoint - A dispute has arisen between the Aave community and Aave Labs regarding revenue sharing following the integration of CoW Swap, which has led to significant financial implications for the Aave DAO treasury [1][2]. Group 1: Revenue Impact - The integration of CoW Swap has resulted in the loss of a revenue stream estimated at approximately $200,000 per week, translating to an annualized impact of around $10 million [2]. - This change is perceived as shifting value away from AAVE token holders, raising concerns among governance delegates [2]. Group 2: Governance and Decision-Making - Marc Zeller, founder of the Aave Chan Initiative, criticized Aave Labs for making unilateral changes to the economic arrangement without DAO approval, which he views as a breach of fiduciary duty [3]. - Zeller expressed concerns about the implications of this decision on future upgrades, particularly the upcoming V4 upgrade, questioning whether other features could be similarly restricted from DAO oversight [4]. Group 3: Defense from Aave Labs - Stani Kulechov, CEO of Aave Labs, defended the integration, arguing that the previous fees from ParaSwap were not mandatory protocol fees but rather a "discretionary surplus" [5].

Protocol Integration - Aave community is exploring the integration of CoW Swap [1] Governance & Operations - Aave community is investigating Aave Labs' alleged 'stealth privatization' of the protocol [1]