@chainza — agreed it’s a separate layer. The part worth adding is that the layer needs a substrate that isn’t a first-class artifact yet.
Two things sit inside §1.9/§1.11 and are easy to conflate:
1 — The neutral cross-protocol surface (the map). From a shared reserve / collateral / verifier set: who across protocols inherits it, and where a break propagates. rsETH is the obvious example — the exposure that mattered ran through a shared WETH reserve and the looped positions on it, none of it visible from inside any single protocol.
Figure 1 — T-1 (pre-incident)
Pre-incident. The dependency between rsETH, Aave’s shared WETH reserve, and the Fluid Lite positions exists but is latent — from inside any single protocol these look isolated.
Figure 2 — T+2 (into the incident)
T+2 into the incident. The latent edges are now live: impairment propagates rsETH → shared WETH reserve → Fluid Lite vault → downstream holders. The cross-protocol surface a static, single-protocol view never shows.
This horizontal piece is the one no single protocol can own — by definition it lives between them, and it isn’t a first-class artifact in any framework yet. That’s the gap I’d close first.
2 — Forward stress on that surface (the simulation). Running the position math forward into the close-factor cascade you describe. Worth being precise about ordering: a stress-sim is only as good as the surface it runs on — you can’t simulate edges no one has mapped, and a single-protocol sim misses exactly the cross-protocol edges that carry these events. So it’s map → simulation, not either/or.
Concretely I’d frame it as three stages, not one:
- (1) Establish the neutral map as first-class — the shared reserve / collateral / verifier sets and who inherits them across protocols.
- (2) Scenario path-tracing — freeze or impair an asset / verifier set and follow where the break propagates, and in what order. Deterministic.
(3) The quantitative model you’re describing — position math forward into the close-factor dynamics. The genuinely new engine, built on (1)+(2).
I’ve reconstructed the rsETH episode cross-protocol and am glad to walk @LlamaRisk, or anyone speccing §1.9/§1.11, through it.
The constraint I’d keep first-class throughout: this only works if the map is neutral — no single protocol can map the exposure it shares with its competitors.
–– Kazuki Kaneshiro, ZKSC / Ninja