Appreciate the transparency from Chaos here. Regardless of where people land on the underlying disagreement, I think one takeaway for the DAO is that V4 raises the bar for what the risk stack needs to look like.
If the protocol is moving toward a more interdependent, system-level risk surface, this may be a good moment to think not only about who fills the formal risk provider role, but also whether Aave should add new tooling layers that can complement steward-driven parameter management with more continuous, forward-looking signals.
In that spirit, I shared a temp check on whether Allora could be evaluated as a complementary predictive risk layer for Aave, not as a presumptive replacement for existing providers, but as an additional input the DAO may want to consider as it thinks through the next version of the risk stack: https://governance.aave.com/t/temp-check-onboard-allora-network-as-an-aave-risk-service-provider/24392
Would welcome feedback there from anyone who thinks predictive volatility, liquidity, or liquidation-risk inference could be useful alongside the more traditional risk-provider model.