AAVE: Cross Chain Deployment Success / Priorities


There are currently 2 governance proposals to expand AAVE cross chain - one to Harmony with a snapshot that ends in roughly 2 days, and one from Avalanche that does not yet have a snapshot vote available.

The Harmony vote will clearly pass snapshot, and it appears from the supporting text that the Harmony team already has the code ready to deploy plus 5M in incentives to support liquidity.

Similarly, announcements have been made from the Avalanche team and AAVE teams that several million in incentives are ready to deploy to Avalanche seemingly immediately upon the eventual snapshot vote passing.

This sets up an interesting, and AFAIK novel, situation where AAVE could see near simultaneous deployment to 2 new chains at once! Amazing!

These ae strong moves for the AAVE ecosystem. It is un-controversially good for additional high-quality EVM blockspace to be filled by AAVE based transactions and AAVE base liquidity that generates value for the protocol.

These 2 chains both provide access to that type of block space and also to thousands of new potential users. Done well this will be a strategically key moment for AAVE’s growth.

At the same time, these expansions also come with operational complexities.

For example, maintaining priority and clarity in marketing / communication about which incentives, apply to which chain, for how long.

Prioritizing order for changes to the AAVE front-end etc and prioritizing order for supporting trouble shooting on each deployment while also continuing to support both ETH and Matic. This of course will come with an influx of newbie question from both communities as many users try AAVE for the first time.

And more!

TL;DR launching on 2 chains is exciting and also not operationally trivial.

I’m interested in understanding what policies and procedures are being contemplated to ensure these 2 new deployments execute well and the entire AAVE ecosystem benefits.

How is the decision to prioritize support for one chain deployment in front of another to be equitably handled in the inevitable situation that there are simultaneous issues on 2 or 3 chains?

Further, are there things members of the AAVE community might be called on to help with? Are there gaps that must be filled?

There are more considerations I’m sure, but the above should be adequate to frame the challenge ahead and launch discussion.

I’m very curious where things stand, what current needs are if any, how to help if help is needed, and to confirm the adequate groundwork is in place not just in the code that deploys but also in change management to ensure the exceptional UX reputation that AAVE has earned over these past months grows even stronger during this exciting and aspirational next growth phase.



You definitely bring up a very relevant topic. Updates to the Polygon market imo have been excruciatingly slow, and so AAVE is likely not meeting the needs of the new chains as effectively as it could be.

Beyond just having more people to work on the protocol which I imagine is in the works, I’ve observed that much of the problem is simply the painful process of proposing AIPs. For example, the Aavegotchi team has been waiting to formally propose listing GHST for a long time now, and they were hoping to include amGHST as a collateral asset as part of a key attribute of the game.

I think it may be worth thinking about how we can expedite the process of listing assets in a timely manner in a way that doesn’t compromise the solvency of the protocol. I imagine that the formation of the Risk DAO could help with this, as they could be delegated proposal power to list assets instead of the current meta where projects that want to propose listing assets need to practically beg everyone to delegate them the proposal power necessary to get a proposal up.