Just wanted to weigh in on my and Llama’s experience working with Gauntlet.
We’ve worked closely with Gauntlet to get risk advice and recommendations on several proposals. In our experience, they are extremely rigorous, professional, and responsive.
Here are few examples where Gauntlet’s thorough risk simulations have helped us and Aave:
- Interest rate curve adjustments for wETH
- Market risks of listing LP tokens as collateral
- Interest rate curve changes for Aave v2 Ethereum
There are times we disagree with Gauntlet. For example, we believe they were too conservative with AIP-121 on risk parameter changes on Aave v2 Ethereum following the CRV excess debt situation. So we worked on AIP-125 with Chaos Labs to update some risk parameters that Gauntlet had proposed earlier.
Gauntlet has been quite understanding and professional through these changes. They proactively worked with us on the CRV debt repayment proposal and proposed using part of their insolvency fund to repay the excess debt.
I hope that the concerns brought up by Ernesto, Andrew, and Fig will be taken seriously by Gauntlet. We look forward to seeing a revised proposal incorporating the feedback that we can discuss and vote on.
Re. scope: there should be some flexibility from Gauntlet’s side (given the changing nature of DeFi), but most expectations on what is and isn’t part of the mandate should be agreed upon upfront.
Aave is long ways away from growing to a $50+ billion protocol. Our goal is to see Aave thrive and I think Gauntlet plays an important role in securing the protocol.