For visibility, we believe the case of syrupUSDC is precisely the type of asset whose category/type should be evaluated and included in an allowlist before proceeding with a full analysis for onboarding by all service providers.
To be more precise in what concerns the technical and security analysis, to be up to our standards of quality, analysing syrupUSDC for onboarding is equivalent to analysing the whole Maple protocol behind the asset, together with the strategies of re-supplying collateral (whenever applicable) into other protocols (e.g. SKY, which factually is considered up to standards on Aave, but others simply not evaluated like Kamino).
Even if we are willing to do that if the community decides to include the category in the allowlist, this will have very major consequences (delay) on all of our other areas of contribution: the resources spent to evaluate fully another lending protocol, together with setting up ad-hoc internal procedures, not only for us, but for all other service providers involved, like risk.
Finally, we think that adding this type of asset will create a very major precedent on assets partially based on hypotecation being onboarded to Aave, consequently adding tail risk to the Aave protocol. So high-level, we will be against adding this asset category to the allowlist.