# \[ARFC\] Technical Asset Listing Framework

**URL:** https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-technical-asset-listing-framework/24988
**Category:** General
**Created:** [May 28, 2026, 11:29pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-technical-asset-listing-framework/24988 "2026-05-28T23:29:14Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![50xMonarch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/5/71c47a/32.png) [@50xMonarch](https://governance.aave.com/u/50xMonarch)
#### Post date: [May 29, 2026, 9:39am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-technical-asset-listing-framework/24988/4 "2026-05-29T09:39:29Z")

</div>

> [@AaveLabs](#):
>
> If a comparable asset exists, it should be used as the initial reference point for oracle design, LTV, liquidation threshold, caps, and other collateralization parameters, subject to the new asset’s own technical profile.

this feels like it would make it easy for new assets to inherit older assets’ flawed parameters.

the rseth situation has shown that listed assets’ parameters are not necessarily trustworthy and/or kept up to date. had there been up to date changes in deposit caps, the situation could have been far less costly. do we really want to be in a situation where we could have just copied the rseth parameters to a new listing?

---

_[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-technical-asset-listing-framework/24988)._