BGD. Full deprecation of stable rate

Development
10

i am against this.

this topic came out previously and i asked questions directly to @bgdlabs bgdlabs and got no response. so pls i would prefer if @bgdlabs responds and i don’t get attacked/sidetracked by others

below is the question i asked:

Continuing the discussion from Aave v2/v3 security incident 04/11/2023:

you have now upgraded to “extremely asymmetric”? please explain what you mean by this? with respect you throw in a technical word with no explanation. sounds like baloney to me.

you mention that the attack vector is closed and pools with stable rates are NOT at risk of exploit or putting protocol at risk:

Even if with the halting of minting of stable rate we are fully confident that there is no further vector

or what are you saying? the use of “if” makes it a bit ambiguous. is it or is it not still a risk vector?

In terms of disclosure, even if all parties aware of the vector (including us and the white-hat) are fully confident that the whole Aave system is safe, as we mentioned before, we see no value in disclosing the details of the vector yet

so is the following your case for moving ppl from stable to variable:

  1. you can release the reason for exploit
  2. the stable rate pools make your risk models more difficult
  3. asymmetry (pls explain this)

also what is meant by this:

there are user positions at stable, which factually have fixed rate until they decide to close it, without any kind of rebalancing applicable

“the users positions at stable, which factually have fixed rate until the decide to close”. again with respect this sounds like gobbledygook. stable and fixed rate are the same thing. always have been.

full disclosure:

i opened stable rate in bear. have had that open for a long time. the stable rate during bear was higher than variable, so i was paying more to aave and one could say subsidizing the variable rate ppl to give them cheaper debt.

i did this because i thought when bull market comes the variable rate will increase as ppl seek leverage. this has finally started happening and now you want to force me to close this position.

i think this is unfair and i don’t think @bgdlabs reasoning justifies forcing ppl to close their positions.

i.e.
there is no exploit risk.
i don’t believe that the stable pools would complicating their models as much as they are purporting.
there are a lot more complex variables that they need to model.

1 Like