Complicated topic, but after assessing pros/cons of keeping ETH borrowing enabled I’m in favor of stopping borrowing.
Yes, it could create some asymmetry with other protocols keeping it enabled, but let’s be honest, those protocols are doing something really irresponsible given the realistic potential risk of full utilization of ETH, and not having collateral available for liquidation.
In a second point, as an AAVE holder and community member I find 2 aspects of this proposal a bit concerning:
-
Needless to say, the analysis of the OP is of high quality, and really nice to see other entities participating on Aave and trying to help. That being said, we are setting a really dangerous precedent with this and also some other proposals: somebody does something valuable for the community → asks for a sum of funds directly on the analysis itself.
This is not the first case, with for example ARC: Aave V3 Retroactive Funding just approved (even if completely different order of magnitude).
My point is that we are normalizing this way of acting, and it is not normal. And it is especially bad when linking even with on-chain proposals the action itself (stopping borrowing) and the release of the funds to a 3rd party.
In this case, I’m completely in favor of the sum requested, but this should be done through the Aave Grants DAO. So it is difficult to understand that even the proposer (Gauntlet) includes that on both Snapshot and on-chain. It should just not be included at all. -
As an AAVE holder, I would like to understand why Gauntlet (represented here by @Pauljlei ), the party directly engaged with the Aave community and getting paid for it, takes so much time to not only do the risk analysis pre-merge but even to answer to a completely un-engaged party like Block Analitica on their analysis.
I have supported Gauntlet in the past, (and worked with them on multiple topics around Aave) but I feel quite unacceptable that:- We are 10 days away from an event as potentially disruptive as the Merge, and only 1 week ago the main party engaged for risk purposes shows involvement in the topic.
- Some non-engaged party needs to appear to give an assessment, and it takes 7 days to answer them.
The community is paying a fair sum of funds for the risk-related services, so I think it is important to understand which was the problem here.