# Aave Cowswap Integration- Tokenholder Questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [December 11, 2025, 11:08am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/aave-cowswap-integration-tokenholder-questions/23530 "2025-12-11T11:08:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/ezr3al/32/10721_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://governance.aave.com/u/EzR3aL)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2025, 11:14am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/aave-cowswap-integration-tokenholder-questions/23530/10 "2025-12-12T11:14:18Z")
@AaveLabs I want to summarize my questions and your answers presented, as well as other delegates feedback so far. Please verify and confirm or give an answer to these. Appreciate the great discussion in here. To everyone else, please keep in mind that im monitoring this forum and any insulting or bad behaviour will result in deleting your comment, silencing your account or banning you. > [@EzR3aL](#): > > Can Aave Labs confirm it decided unilaterally to cut the referral revenue stream of the Aave DAO? > [@AaveLabs](#): > > the DAO funds protocol development and approves changes to the protocol’s smart contracts on-chain So that would essentially mean that the contract created in this [proposal](https://governance.aave.com/t/bgd-aave-debt-swap-adapter-contract/12738) is owned by the DAO? As it has been funded by the DAOs treasury, is on-chain and a contract to allow debt swaps? Same would apply to [this one](https://governance.aave.com/t/bgd-aave-gho-debt-swap-adapter/14051), correct? It is not a feature that is completely independent from the DAO and only and fully created by Aave Labs. Wasn’t the first iteration of these contracts created by Paraswap together with DAO member? > [@EzR3aL](#): > > Aave DAO members are supposed to be working for the DAO. So, how does it fit that picture when Labs unilaterally decides to slap a fee on a feature that used to be free? Especially without asking the DAO (who used to get the fees) and now that money is going straight to a private company. > [@AaveLabs](#): > > Aave Labs has the discretion to operate and monetize it in a way that supports its continued development. Any monetization applies only to accessory features such as collateral swaps and does not touch the core economics of the protocol I agree with that, although a user is now in a worse position. As before only the surplus was taken, now its a fee of either 15 or 25bps. > [@EzR3aL](#): > > The DAO already paid Aave Labs to build the interface and funded others for the advanced features. People use the site because of the protocol, which the DAO owns. So, where’s the alignment? It feels like Labs is just leveraging the [aave.com](http://aave.com) domain to extract value that should rightfully go to the DAO. Wouldn’t it make more sense to apply as a SP for hosting the frontend and asking the DAO for compensation? Cause the domain is owned by Avara, the DAO is never gonna be able to host a frontend on its own without trademark infringement. Additionally the DAO paid for the new [Aave brand](https://governance.aave.com/t/temp-check-aave-visual-identity/17542). Is this statement correct? Shouldn’t part of the revenue collected then also go to the DAO? As its clear that the main traffic is happening because of brand recognition and trust. Additionally approx. 2 years ago the frontend was also hosted/maintained by DAO SP. To add icons for asset listings or implement features. Is this correct? > [@EzR3aL](#): > > Is the swap of provider to CowSwap exclusively because Cowswap is better for users? Or is there any type of agreement between Aave Labs and CowSwap leading to that decision? > [@AaveLabs](#): > > CowSwap was integrated into the [app.aave.com](http://app.aave.com) interface because it improves the experience for users I agree that CowSwap is a great product and I love using it on [https://swap.cow.fi/](https://swap.cow.fi/). But it would have been great if Aave Labs would have informed the DAO about removing a DAO made and paid feature that generated at least a little bit in revenue. Would have avoided a lot questions. > [@EzR3aL](#): > > Why is Aave Labs posting updates on the forum about features that have never been mentioned in the scope of the DAOs mandate? After revisiting its fine, and there is no problem with that. But maybe should be flagged as “out of DAO scope”. Just to separate it clearly. Whats DAO related/paid, whats fully Aave Labs internal. Especially for people just occasionally reading the forum. Thank you for reading my comments and answering my questions. Highly appreciate the DAO being that active, feels like its the last man standing in this space. --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/aave-cowswap-integration-tokenholder-questions/23530)._