[ARC] Gauntlet <> Aave Renewal

I have to say, I was surprised to see the turnout / result of the Snapshot vote without much feedback left in this discussion. With Aave V3 on Ethereum being imminent and initial risk parameters not yet finalized, I am concerned about further delays for the protocol.

Personally, I’d really like to read the feedback from those that voted NAY. I believe such an open discussion would help expedite the process and offer clarity to the community.

Separately, have a few tidbits of feedback myself…

In my opinion, this is the biggest improvement that Gauntlet can make. For most (myself included), I don’t have tools or bandwidth to check Gauntlet’s math. As a user, I have to trust that they’re looking at all the right things and setting the right parameters. But given recent events, I believe we got complacent and didn’t reevaluate the current environment quickly enough.

I’d prefer a model where all the details behind decisions are shared upfront and summarized for the community to digest. In that way, the community can clearly understand the current set of assumptions behind current parameters (that they’ve indirectly agreed to by accepting the parameters). And therefor, proactively, can have a more informed discussion on whether or not the current set of assumptions should change.

A community is much more well equipped to discuss what assumptions the protocol should make about the current environment vs. debating the nitty-gritty between a 88% or 91% LTV (based on toolset alone). As a downstream, a risk manager, Gauntlet or otherwise, can only then suggest parameters based on this dynamic set of assumptions set by the community.

For example, in a different reply @tarun shared that Gauntlet had polled community members and landed on a security budget of $100M for each market. This polling, to my knowledge, was done in private. While I understand that we didn’t want an attacker knowing markets might be vulnerable if more than $100M was used to manipulate them, I don’t think this is the right approach.

Gauntlet uses only public data to inform its parameter recommendations. If we assume an attacker has access to the same data, this means it’s possible they come to a similar conclusion on their own (which we saw happened for the REN market). The way the security budget was set is more akin to security by obscurity than anything else.

With the transition to V3 where capped supply and borrow are possible, I think most would agree that publicly deciding the risk budget would be best. I don’t think it should stop there though.

I use this only as an example of an assumption made, but not made publicly. I believe as responsible stewards, it’d be best if assumptions on all decisions are shared publicly to encourage discussion on what the community thinks is best. If an assumption is wrong, everyone should have a chance to know and express their opinion as to why or why not.