Aave Protocol V1 -> V2 migration tool and transition plan

This is a good question and I haven’t thought extensively about an ideal schedule for everyone. But my quick take on this…

I think that it would be reasonable for the disabling of borrowing over 2-3 months, so that anyone depending on borrowing from Aave in the short-term can continue for a while longer while planning the change over. Then delay the disabling of depositing to start in 8-12 months, so that anyone who wants to can maintain their collateral ratio at least until most people have switched over to long-term capital gains or had ample time to plan a change.

I would love to see what other people think as well, and I would like to better understand the tradeoffs of operating two systems in parallel. Is the main concern for having a speedy migration making sure as much liquidity is available as possible in a single new system so that it is more useful, for example for large flash loans? Are there other risks, like maintaining two systems takes a lot more effort, or may confuse users, etc?

Also I just want to give a quick example that might help illustrate why the migration is very difficult for some people tax-wise and what the timeframe looks like. Imagine someone spent their life savings of $100,000 to buy ETH on March 17, 2020 at $125, getting them 800 ETH. They immediately deposited into Aave. Fast forward to now and it’s worth over $900,000. They’ve been using Aave to borrow USDC to pay for their rent, so they can stay invested in ETH and not have to pay any taxes immediately.

Now if they have to execute the migration within the next few weeks while the gains are still short-term, the $800,000 difference between what they paid for the ETH and what it’s worth now would immediately become taxable at income tax rates in the US. Suddenly they have to pay almost $300,000 in taxes this year.

Before having to migrate, they didn’t have any immediate taxes to pay. They could’ve slowly sold off over several years. Now they suddenly have a $300,000 tax bill. They don’t have that much USD, so they either half to sell 37.5% of their ETH to pay it, or borrow $300,000. Both of these put them in a financially worse or riskier situation. They are surprised because they didn’t think that just months after depositing into Aave, the system would be deprecated.


I just came across this post which describes the same tax issue mentioned that would be a deterrent for future large depositors, especially institutions. It has an interesting solution for future deposits, but the current deposits are still going to face this issue even if this is implemented.

1 Like

Just had an idea for a solution to the migration tax problem, based on the Optional LP Share Withdrawals thread!

The Optional LP Share Withdrawals can be implemented, and an extra feature added to allow you to deposit your v1 aTokens. The smart contract could take your aTokens as a deposit, and migrate it to v2 for you, without returning to you the v2 tokens. Then perhaps it won’t be seen as a taxable token swap, solving the issue. Though probably it needs to be possible for the v1 aTokens to be returned to you on withdrawal in order for it to be considered a loan to avoid the taxable event.

Or perhaps v1 aTokens can be allowed as collateral in Aave v2, combined with the Optional LP Share Withdrawals idea.

1 Like

I’m not that well read in the workings of AAVE. But I am borrowing BUSD, and using ETH as collatoral.
Would love to migrate to V2, but currently it would cost me 600 dollars.
That’s a bit much for me to handle.
Problem is: if pools get disabled, borrowings get disabled. Probably my APY that I would have to pay would increase massively. Even now BUSD sometimes spikes up to 40% APY for half a day.
So it would force me too gamble: will the 600 dollars outway the fees I have to pay for the APY or not?

Hello guys, this is a great feedback. Unfortunately the ETH usage is at all time high and the price of ETH does not help, and transactions are super expensive. Migration in particular, especially if you deposited and borrowed many assets. I agree overall that the migration schedule needs to be adjusted to adapt with the network conditions and don’t overcomplicate life for V1 borrowers. As you can see, no proposals have been made after the release of the migration tool.


In the more-than four months since Aave V2 was launched, ~60% of the Aave protocol liquidity organically migrated from Aave V1 to the Aave V2 reserves.

With significant reserves in, the community has the opportunity to implement a plan to transition the remaining reserves from V1 to V2. The community has the opportunity to bring about this change to ease the borrowing pressure on V1, to address high transaction fees that exist now, and may increase further upon the implementation of Berlin Hardfork. The migration can benefit not only Aave users, but also the Aave ecosystem as a whole because it will allow protocols integrating with Aave to have additional stablecoins liquidity available (due to the ecosystem-wide stablecoin liquidity crush).

The transition plan can have several phases to progressively allow users to upgrade their liquidity on Aave V2 at their own pace.

If governance approves this proposal, the next proposed transition phase could be to disable the ability to take new stablecoins loans.

Summary of proposal :

Activation of phase 1 of the transition plan, creation of an AIP vote disabling new stable rates loans of all assets on Aave V1.


IMO, it is a better path to continue to draw liquidity from V1 by offering better and more attractive features on V2, NOT by reducing functionality on V1.

I believe this because the pace of innovation and development on V2 is a really good carrot.

Disabling fixed rates on V1 seems to be a cruel stick.


That said, it is a good way to deprecate V1 and presuming it didn’t take effect for several months than I would probably vote for it.

to be clear, it’s proposed to disable new stable rate positions, previous ones are unaffected.

Sure, but imagine that I am managing some decent sized loans on V1.

I am not ready to repay the loans. In fact, I’d like to take out a larger loan, but I no longer will because of the new policy and how much I like taking out loans with stable rates.

Will this user migrate to V2? Maybe at some point. Will this user take out more loans on the AAVE protocol, probably not with this new policy in place.

This policy will move users from V1 to V2. But it would have other consequences too and it’s important to consider them. Not necessarily yield to them, but certainly consider them.

1 Like

What advantages to AAVE token holders will result in a forced migration to V2?

Or is the argument that it’s in their best interest to force them now because gas fees will rise?

One direct advantage is that the Aave collector (InitializableAdminUpgradeabilityProxy | 0x464c71f6c2f760dda6093dcb91c24c39e5d6e18c) which holds the income generated by the protocol reserve factor, would also start receiving the value generated by V1 borrowers. V1 does not have the capability of collecting interest through reserve factor, so effectively the protocol is losing revenue every day. Right now the fee collector grows around 20/25K a day thanks to V2, and that would essentially double if the outstanding V1 debt would migrate to V2.
Indirectly of course, V2 provides way better user experience and lower transaction costs so it has higher user retention


I’d be disappointed to have the V1 Stable Loan option removed. Stable rates are consistently lower on V1 than V2 which has kept me from migrating. If it were possible to move funds from V1 to V2 while maintaining my existing V1 Stable rates I would gladly pay the gas fee to fund my migration. If maintaining the current rate is not possible between V1 and V2, another angle would be to provide a direct incentive (Aave tokens?) to V1 borrowers in the migration process to justify and offset any stable rate disparity they would incur moving from V1 to V2.


@Emilio - is it possible to implement a function on V2 that allows borrowers to swap held debt positions (or a percentage there of) between stable coins? Do you think maybe this will have the effect of creating more stable/consistent rates across all stable coins? If so, this could be more appealing for V1 borrowers to migrate sooner

1 Like

If you force me out of V1 by not letting me borrow stable $ i will simply leave AAVE .

Stable rate loans are currently lower on V1 because the V1 lending rate oracle isn’t as efficiently maintained as the one of V2. it’s not a situation that is sustainable long term, and action need to be taken. Either disabling the V1 stable borrow rates, or migrating V1 to the V2 stable rate oracle, which will anyway increase the stable borrow rates. If you look at the percentages, right now too much of the outstanding debt is being borrowed at stable, which isn’t an ideal situation for liquidity providers.


AAVE does not really benefit from asset segregation across two versions … strictly speaking pricing should be better if everyone was using V2.

I suppose some people are still using V1 because they have outstanding positions that they are not really touching due to gas costs. Probably when they eventually close their loans, then they might leave V1 and migrate to V2 because it has better features or more assets. To accelerate this migration, it might be interesting to incentivise this by refunding the gas spent whilst migrating from V1 → V2 in the form of claimable AAVE worth the ETH spent, or by airdropping the ETH spent directly to them? (This could be done for a 1-month period to incentivise people to move “now” as opposed to anytime).


I think at this point some form of incentive is needed. The community is discussing around a liquidity mining initiative, that would accelerate the migration process while also boost growth. @Julien here is the thread for reference Proposal: Introduce Liquidity Incentives for Aave v2


yes, it is possible. It can be built on top of v2 using flashloans


Proposal has been submitted:

I also created an ARC to collect signals regarding a possible refunding strategy for V1 borrowers: