Title: [ARFC] Freeze TUSD on Aave V2 Ethereum Pool
Author: @MarcZeller - Aave Chan Initiative
Date: 2023-06-27
Summary
This ARFC proposes a direct-to-AIP framework proposal to freeze TUSD on the Aave V2 Ethereum pool.
Motivation
Following recent events with the TUSD asset, The ACI proposes to freeze the TUSD reserve on the Aave V2 Ethereum pool. This will prevent users from depositing or borrowing TUSD on the Aave V2 Ethereum pool. This will not affect current positions. Users will still be able to repay and withdraw TUSD from the Aave V2 Ethereum pool.
This AIP is designed to take a conservative approach to the TUSD situation. It will allow the community to take a step back and assess the situation before making any further decisions.
Specification
The proposed change will require modifications to the Aave protocol smart contracts. Specifically, the FreezeReserve() function will be called on the TUSD reserve in the Aave V2 Ethereum pool. This will prevent any new deposits, borrows for TUSD on the pool, effectively freezing the reserve.
in terms of implementation, here’s the proposed payload:
contract AaveV2FreezeReserves_20230627 is IProposalGenericExecutor {
address public constant TUSD = AaveV2EthereumAssets.TUSD_UNDERLYING;
function execute() external {
AaveV2Ethereum.POOL_CONFIGURATOR.freezeReserve(TUSD);
}
}
Disclaimer
The ACI has not been compensated to present this proposal.
Next Steps
Escalate this proposal to AIP stage.
If AIP outcome is YAE, the proposed changes will be implemented on the Aave protocol.
Thanks ACI for putting up this proposal. As Gauntlet mentioned here, out of an abundance of caution and for proactivity, we support ACI’s proposal to freeze TUSD supply.
Supporting freezing at least until the perceived counterparty risk decreases.
It is actually important for the community to normalize the freezing action as something fully reversible, but at the same a really important risk-control mechanism that should be exercised proactively.
Additionally, just the fact of considering freezing on an asset should mean that the LT/LTV parameters (80%/82.5%) are completely over-configured, so, in my opinion, they should be radically dropped, most probably close to 70% LT levels.
TUSD is a liquid asset, so even if potentially causes liquidations, it should be possible for users to use the collateral swap feature to replace their exposure.
Please kindly explain the escalation of the poll bypassing snapshot? Is this governance procedure? So the previous poll to drop the LT and LTV was ignored?
ACI are you truly independent and not working for kickbacks with an agenda? To achieve an outcome you desire?
Again this is abuse of governance and centralised i now strongly doubt the integrity of ACI and marc zeller now.
The community should assess the actions on how much exceptions has been granted to this poll to attempt to skew the votes towards hes desired outcome.
This is ridiculous and if it can happen now it can happen again and again.
here’s the snapshot that integrated it on guidelines Snapshot
As I always say, all opinions are welcomed in this forum, but not all ways to express them are. @fumoffuXx consider yourself warned. here are the Forum Guidelines; FAQ/Guidelines
It is unfortunate for you to provide a warning on topics you do not see eye to eye with. My comments did not offend the guidelines as what you considered name calling.
It is clear that corners are cut when the position of the risk assessors had suddenly changed away from the forums for public view. No reason were provide just a sudden change of heart.
I do not see myself at fault for insinuating your lack of integrity on the matter. It is clear there was some form of communications and cohesion to collude on the matter.
Also one point you might not know is that risk manager point of view is only consultative and the DAO can perfectly ignore it if it wishes to.
Futhermoar, as that their analysis rely mainly on on-chain data the extend of their recommendation has some limit.
But glad to see u are taking dao participation seriously ^^
