I don’t think this kind of collaboration makes too much sense for the Aave community at the moment. My reasons are:
- Similar to the initial (now changed) Llama proposal, but way more in this one, there is quite a big overlap with other entities engaged with the Aave DAO, in this case, Gauntlet, that is, of course, being compensated by it.
- The scope is too broad and pricy, and by an entity that (even if I’m aware of https://aave.chaoslabs.xyz/, which is a quite nice dashboard) doesn’t have any history with Aave. From what I see, the projects of Chaos Labs with other protocols/DAOs have a smaller scope, so I think that is the only way to go here.
- This proposal is quite vendor-tying, and even if I know there are already cases in that direction (aforementioned Gauntlet, partially Certora), the community should probably start having a harder stand on that. Especially when we are talking about a really big amount like $3.3m.
- Some items seem to be porting products developed for other entities to Aave, which is fine, but obviously changes a bit the pricing.
- As I also mentioned on the Llama proposal, again, GHO is not live and/or public. The Aave DAO can’t start paying for services on something which is not completely clear and open. The result will be that an entity will be compensated for something that doesn’t even exist yet, and on what there should be a more serious evaluation (for services) once in the market.
- Part of the scope includes “access” features to the certain infrastructure of Chaos Labs. Even if potentially useful, are we sure other entities on the risk side will use this? Because from the technical perspective, even if could help in some cases, it is not something really required.
- No
RISK_ADMINandASSET_LISTING_ADMINshould be given to anybody that doesn’t have an extensive history with Aave.
In summary, without not more results shown in a smaller scope engagement (continuous if required), I’m against this proposal.