# \[ARFC\] sUSDe and USDe Price Feed Update **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [January 2, 2025, 9:05pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-susde-and-usde-price-feed-update/20495 "2025-01-02T21:05:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![ElliotNess](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/elliotness/32/5753_2.png) [@ElliotNess](https://governance.aave.com/u/ElliotNess)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2025, 6:19am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-susde-and-usde-price-feed-update/20495/4 "2025-01-03T06:19:04Z")
This is a disappointingly low quality ARFC from two service providers _without_ digging into any potential conflicts. > [@ChaosLabs](#): > > This setup exposes the sUSDe-backed positions to USDe’s secondary market price deviations. 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_. > [@ChaosLabs](#): > > However, with market liquidity constrained to support liquidations of only $6M within a 4% price impact (equal to the liquidation bonus), the majority of these liquidations would likely not be executed as unprofitable for liquidators, potentially causing bad debt to Aave. 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. --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-susde-and-usde-price-feed-update/20495)._