# \[ARFC\] Framework for Instances and Friendly Forks

**URL:** <https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-framework-for-instances-and-friendly-forks/19659>\
**Category:** General\
**Created:** [November 1, 2024, 12:00pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-framework-for-instances-and-friendly-forks/19659 "2024-11-01T12:00:46Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sid\_areta](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/sid_areta/32/5220_2.png) [@sid\_areta](https://governance.aave.com/u/sid_areta)\
**Post date:** [November 6, 2024, 12:21pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-framework-for-instances-and-friendly-forks/19659/6 "2024-11-06T12:21:22Z")

</div>

Really good proposal. Sometimes it gets confusing to assess these friendly forks and whitelabel instances on their own merits when they are presented as ‘one-off’ proposals. We’d like to see each such proposal follow a template, how they meet this framework, and outline any mitigating circumstances, to allow delegates to easily assess whether to approve or reject the proposal.

---

_[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-framework-for-instances-and-friendly-forks/19659)._