ARFC: Gauntlet Risk Parameter Updates for Ethereum v3, Arbitrum v3, Ethereum v2 2023-06-26

Simple Summary

A proposal to adjust risk parameters, including Loan To Value, Liquidation Threshold, and Liquidation Bonus across 6 assets on Ethereum v3, Arbitrum v3 and Ethereum v2.

Abstract

These parameter updates are a continuation of Gauntlet’s regular parameter recommendations. Our simulation engine has ingested the latest market data (outlined below) to recalibrate parameters for the Ethereum v3, Ethereum v2, and Arbitrum Aave v3 protocols. regarding lowering liquidation thresholds.

Ethereum Aave v3 Parameter Changes Specification

Parameter Current Value Recommended Value
DAI Loan To Value 67% 77%
USDC Liquidation Threshold 79% 80%
WSTETH Liquidation Bonus 7% 6%

We recommend to raise the DAI LTV by 10% to make the LTV/LT spread more in line with other stablecoins across Aave v3, as currently the spread of 13% is an outlier across all v3 markets that inhibits user experience.

Arbitrum Aave v3 Parameter Changes Specification

Parameter Current Value Recommended Value
LINK Liquidation Threshold 75% 77.5%

Ethereum Aave v2 Parameter Changes Specification

Parameter Current Value Recommended Value
CRV Loan to Value 52% 0%
SNX Liquidation Threshold 62% 59%

Gauntlet continues to recommend freezing CRV and setting the CRV LTV to 0, despite the AIP failing to pass.
Lowering SNX LT by 3% will force 2 liquidations totalling $20 of supply.

Risk Dashboard

The community should use Gauntlet’s Risk Dashboard to understand better the updated parameter suggestions and general market risk.

Ethereum v3 Dashboard

image

Arbitrum v3 Dashboard

Ethereum v2 Dashboard

image

Our simulations show there is room to increase capital efficiency without materially impacting insolvency risk.

Next Steps

  • Initiate Snapshot vote on 2023-07-03.

Appendix

This set of parameter updates seeks to maintain the overall risk tolerance of the protocol while making risk trade-offs between specific assets.

Gauntlet’s parameter recommendations are driven by an optimization function that balances 3 core metrics: insolvencies, liquidations, and borrow usage. Parameter recommendations seek to optimize for this objective function. Our agent-based simulations use a wide array of varied input data that changes on a daily basis (including but not limited to asset volatility, asset correlation, asset collateral usage, DEX / CEX liquidity, trading volume, expected market impact of trades, and liquidator behavior). Gauntlet’s simulations tease out complex relationships between these inputs that cannot be simply expressed as heuristics. As such, the input metrics we show below can help understand why some of the param recs have been made but should not be taken as the only reason for recommendation. The individual collateral pages on the Gauntlet Ethereum Aave V3 Risk Dashboard cover other key statistics and outputs from our simulations that can help with understanding interesting inputs and results related to our simulations.

For more details, please see Gauntlet’s Parameter Recommendation Methodology and Gauntlet’s Model Methodology.

Supporting Data on Ethereum Aave V3

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive aggregate positions on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive aggregate positions on Ethereum Aave V3

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers’ entire supply on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers' entire supply on Ethereum Aave V3

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers’ entire borrow on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers' entire borrows on Ethereum Aave V3

Top 10 non-recursive suppliers of DAI on 2023-06-25

Top 10 DAI Suppliers on 2023-06-25

Top 10 non-recursive suppliers of USDC on 2023-06-25

Top 10 USDC Suppliers on 2023-06-25

Top 10 non-recursive suppliers of WSTETH on 2023-06-25

Top 10 WSTETH Suppliers on 2023-06-25

Supporting Data on Arbitrum Aave V3

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive aggregate positions on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive aggregate positions on Arbitrum Aave V3

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers’ entire supply on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers' entire supply on Arbitrum Aave V3

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers’ entire borrow on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers' entire borrows on Arbitrum Aave V3

Top 10 non-recursive suppliers of LINK on 2023-06-25

Top 10 LINK Suppliers on 2023-06-25

Supporting Data on Aave V2

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive aggregate positions on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive aggregate positions on Aave V2

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers’ entire supply on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers' entire supply on Aave V2

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers’ entire borrow on 2023-06-25

Top 30 non-recursive and partially-recursive borrowers' entire borrows on Aave V2

Top 10 non-recursive suppliers of CRV on 2023-06-25

Top 10 CRV Suppliers on 2023-06-25

Top 10 non-recursive suppliers of SNX on 2023-06-25

Top 10 SNX Suppliers on 2023-06-25



Quick Links

Risk Dashboard
Gauntlet Parameter Recommendation Methodology
Gauntlet Model Methodology

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.

2 Likes

We put up the snapshot for the risk parameter updates here. Voting begins in 1 day and lasts for 3 days.

Hello, we agree on all proposed changes but one: setting CRV LTV to zero.

this will hurt more than help by removing the ability of CRV holders to increase their collateralization if needed by adding more collateral.

The governance already stated clearly their opinion on this very topic via a previous vote, Gauntlet attempt to sneak it back in another proposal has been noted and will be remembered.

Consequently, the ACI voted no on the snapshot and intent to vote no on a potential AIP stage.

image00004

4 Likes

Hi @MarcZeller - we have no intention to sneak anything through. As we have mentioned previously here and here, we have recommended reducing CRV LTV to 0, and wanted to give the community the opportunity to express their sentiment outside of wholly freezing CRV. We appreciate the comments on the temp check - this is exactly why we do these Snapshot votes before on-chain votes.

It looks like the temp check will fail, and we will take that as a definitive signal and continue to balance risk/reward with that in mind across v2. In addition, we will take this as a community preference to unbundle recommendations for assets that are considered sensitive for the community moving forward.

In terms of next steps - we will remove the CRV recommendation and re-run the Snapshot vote without it.

1 Like

Thank you @Gauntlet and @MarcZeller for your inputs. We agree that it would be best practice to unbundle potentially contentious proposals.

We also have a clarifying question. Does setting LTV–>0 affect user’s ability to add collateral to improve the health of their existing loans? The formula for the health factor contains LT, not LTV. So it seems with LTV = 0, users cannot take out additional loans, but would still be able to add collateral to prevent liquidation of existing loans? In other words, LTV=0 is different from freezing and users can still increase their collateralization?

1 Like

We put up the new Snapshot vote here. Voting begins in 1 day and lasts for 3 days.

1 Like

The AIP has been published here.