This is a disappointingly low quality ARFC from two service providers without digging into any potential conflicts.
Frankly, this can be said of every non-hard coded asset listed on the Aave protocol. And here we are explicitly recommending that sUSDe backed positions are exposed to USDT secondary market price deviations. Why not just code USDe to $1.00? This would not expose the asset to any secondary price deviations. It seems silly to stop there, why not do the same for USDC, USDT, DAI, USDS, PYUSD? If anything, a goal of these other stablecoins is to remain at $1.00 while, as @Hazbobo points out, is explicitly not a goal of USDe, with the Ethena team stating that USDe is not a stablecoin.
This sounds like a reasonable case could be made to both increase the liquidation bonus and/or decrease the TLV of sUSDe. Has this been considered? Likewise, if there are questions about the ability of sUSDe to handle a modest amount of sell pressure without causing $300M of liquidations and bad debt maybe a more in depth analysis should be provided to the community and DAO?
In summary, this reads as an aggressive growth proposal aimed to onboard more e-mode (sUSDe) borrowing, disguised as a risk suggestion. If that’s what the AAVE delegates want, that’s fine, but depositors should be aware. Longtime (pre-chaos / llama risk) readers of this forum will remember the many discussions regarding tradeoffs between primary and secondary price oracles for collateral assets which are worth revisiting. Unfortunately, this ARFC invokes none of those insights.