[ARFC] Gauntlet Recommendation on freezing CRV for Aave v2 Ethereum

Simple Summary

Gauntlet recommends freezing CRV collateral on Aave v2 to prevent the V2 market from continuing to add CRV and increasing concentration risk.

Our rationale for freezing CRV remains the same from the freeze proposals in November 2022, freeze recommendations and rationale in June and recommendations post Vyper Exploit in August. The main consideration is the risk profile of 0x7a16ff8270133f063aab6c9977183d9e72835428 as discussed below.


What does freezing CRV on V2 do?
As outlined in the Post Mortem on CRV, freezing CRV on Aave V2 prevents new CRV borrow and supply. It doesn’t prevent additional borrow against CRV collateral (up to CRV LT), however, users must reduce HF of their positions if they want to borrow more against their CRV collateral.

The position’s health factor has improved, why does Gauntlet still recommend freezing CRV?
The user has been unwinding (withdrawing CRV and repaying borrow) and has a higher health factor of 2.17. Most of the prior pushback on freezing CRV was that it would prevent the user from topping up more CRV collateral to maintain health factor. Now that the position is withdrawing CRV and repaying debt, there’s more reason to prevent future additional CRV supply. The user unlocks 137,150.88 CRV tokens daily until Aug 2024. Hence, they still have the potential to deposit more CRV as collateral on Aave V2 if CRV was not frozen, which would add more risk to the protocol.

What are scenarios that freezing CRV can help prevent?
As of Aug 9, the user has been maintaining debt positions of $15m FRAX at 1.95 HF on Fraxlend, $7.7m DOLA at 1.57 HF on Inverse, and a new position borrowing $2.5m of USDT/USDC at 2.22 HF on Cream. We want to avoid the scenario where they borrow more on Aave to pay back other protocol loans, which happened last week when they borrowed more USDT on Aave to repay their less healthy FRAX loans last week. Such actions would increase CRV concentration and risk of insolvency on Aave. Freezing CRV protects the protocol against this risk and incentivizes the user to repay Aave borrow, rather than top up CRV collateral.

How has the position reacted to previous freeze proposals?
As shown in the time series borrow and supply chart in the CRV Post Mortem, the user has been supplying CRV since the initial Gauntlet proposal to freeze CRV in Nov 2022, perhaps considering that there is a possibility of being unable to top up more CRV if the freeze proposal passes.

How does freezing CRV impact other CRV related parameter recommendations?

  • Set CRV LTV → 0: freezing CRV strengthens this recommendation, since freeze limits borrow against CRV collateral, by preventing additional CRV collateral to be added (which increases the position’s available borrowing capacity).
  • Reduce CRV LT/LTV on V3 Ethereum/Polygon: no material impact. One can imagine that freeze CRV on v2 may drive CRV migration to v3.
  • CRV V2 LT reduction schedule: further incentivizes repayment of debt by preventing the refill of supply.

Next Steps

Welcome community feedback and this proposal will escalate to AIP stage.

Gauntlet has not received any compensation from any third-party in exchange for recommending any of the actions contained in this proposal.

By approving this proposal, you agree that any services provided by Gauntlet shall be governed by the terms of service available at gauntlet.network/tos.


We support the CRV freezing.

Given V2 risk levers, the market, and recent user activity, LT reductions are the most effective lever in mitigating CRV risk and exposure.

In past proposals, we have not supported freezing the CRV markets. We stand behind those recommendations. Enabling the largest account to increase HF via top-ups while protecting against liquidations has been critical during market volatility.

However, at present, market conditions and the wallet’s risk profile have changed significantly, and now, there’s a case to be made for freezing the CRV market. Our previous considerations and concerns remain, and we believe that LT reductions, will be sufficient and most effective in de-risking the market. With that said, we do not strongly oppose this proposal.

It’s noteworthy to highlight that the user has been proactively repaying his debt and redeeming his CRV position, over 44M USDT and 148M CRV, respectively. As we observed in the past, where the user supplied 40M CRV just hours before the November freeze proposal, pushing for a market freeze could lead to maximizing supply on Aave, thereby nullifying the freeze’s intended impact.

  • Without a market freeze, the user can supply CRV on V2. However, our apprehension lies in the potential of inadvertently pushing the user into making impetuous decisions, altering their engagement strategy with Aave.
1 Like

This proposal and previous ones lay out the facts of this unique situation. It is a single user with a large loan of CRV in a low-liquidity environment. Therefore, I believe the goal is to reduce the risk this large loan poses with the tools that are available which are: to stop further CRV borrowing and to stop further CRV buildup. A freeze of CRV will help stop further CRV buildup.

I write this as my independent view as a member of the Governance department at Blockchain at Berkeley.

1 Like

@Gauntlet what’s the status of this proposal?

Thanks for the feedback from the community. We plan on publishing AIP for freezing CRV collateral on V2 today.

1 Like

The AIP has been published here.

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.