As we also agree that having a discussion about everything around Aave is healthy, some extra considerations regarding our position:
-
First of all, we exclusively defend what we think is more optimal for Aave, from the standpoint of an entity with a deep understanding of all Aave technical infrastructure and the implications of changes.
Our engagement with the DAO is to advise and contribute technically based on the previous principle, and the reality is that swapping an Oracle provider without a major reason is definitely not something that helps the perceived stability of the protocol, which goes before everything else. -
We have absolutely no problem with proposals regarding more controlled experimentation of other types of oracles different from Chainlink. But we don’t think adding an extra variable on a potential deployment on a network with pretty new technology by itself (ZK/validity rollup) is positive for Aave under any circumstance unless it is simply impossible to have the current provider (Chainlink) there.
-
It is important to highlight that we are not saying that alternative solutions are not good, just that changing the approach precisely on a new network is not so good idea.
-
From a technical standpoint, it is not a realistic possibility to change from a “push” to a “pull” model right now on Aave. The implications on protocol design and especially user experience are high.
-
It is not so appropriate for this thread to become a discussion between price providers, as the topic is more regarding an Aave v3 deployment on zkEVM. We recommend the different participants to better create independent threads with specific comments.
-
We welcome also representatives from Chainlink to comment on their stand/timeline regarding Polygon zkEVM.