Security and Agility of Aave Smart Contracts via Continuous Formal Verification
Voting YES: We believe the steps taken by Certora so far have proven useful to the protocol as a whole and the updated work agreement terms are reasonable and well deserved!
We voted YAE: Much of our support for this proposal is expressed in the forums, but at its core, we believe the Chaos team deserves the chance to prove themselves on Aave with very favorable work agreement terms.
We voted YAE: The team has been very helpful and explained many of our concerns regarding this proposal. We are impressed by the work the Certora team has done for the last 6 months and thing this terms of work is very fair. Also, we were very happy to lend them our proposing power to submit the formal on chain vote and it was a great learning opportunity for us as well!
We voted NAY: Our ultimate reasoning for voting no is because given current market condition, adding more volatile assets that have not undergone appropriate risk assessments by Gauntlet should have their listing delayed. Pending Gauntlet’s risk analysis in the next couple of weeks, happy to reopen convos; just unlucky timing and analysis.
Risk Parameter Updates for Aave V2 ETH Market (2022-11-12) & Risk Parameter Updates for Aave V2 ETH Market (2022-11-13) & Risk Parameter Updates for Aave V2 ETH (2022-11-13)
We voted YES: We thank the Gauntlet team for ensuring the safety of the protocol and voted yes as a conservative cautionary vote just incase something bad were to happen. Will reassess to readjust parameters in the future, but feel right now in light of everything, these conservative choices are safer.
We voted YES: We think the Gauntlet team is one of the most valuable teams in the industry and a must need for Aave. Their work and on the ground due diligence with many of the recent events happening proves this once again. We’re excited to vote yes and look forward to what they have in store this year!
We voted NO: We had a very productive chat with Luigi and were happy to learn a bit more about this proposal. Our main reasoning for this was the we believe the LTV is too high in current market conditions.
Our main reasoning was this: 70% LTV lets users effectively 1/(1-0.7)= 3.33 leverage if they were to loop their USDT. In times of high FUD in the past, USDT has dropped 6%+ for extended periods of time. With this high of leverage, and at a 70% LTV, substantial risks of bad debt and further other asset markets being under strain might arise.
This is why we believe if USDT were to be added as collateral, we should start off with a 20% LTV before upping that number in the future if things go well / more reserve transparency is provided.
[ARC] Risk Parameter Updates for Aave V2 ETH 2022-11-17
We voted YES: Voting yes as we believe these are good models and in line with our prior risk parameter update decisions.
We voted YES: We believe the liquidity and safety of cbETH is sufficient enough to test out and look forward to seeing new discussions in the next few weeks.
Risk Parameter Updates for Aave v2 Ethereum Liquidty Pool
We voted YES: After the precautionary changes made recently, as things simmer down, we think updating these parameter updates to allow for more borrowing again is appropriate. We thank both Llama and Chaos teams for being “on the ground” and actively managing these situations.
Risk Parameter Updates for Aave v2 Polygon
We voted YES: Similar logic as above. Props to Gauntlet team for also staying on top of things and looking forward to slowly scale up collateral types again in a safe and controlled manner.
Risk Parameter Updates for Aave v2 Ethereum (DAI LT and LTV) & Risk Parameter Updates for Aave v2 Ethereum (USDC LT and LTV)
We voted 150bps LT decrease for USDC and 300bps LT decrease for DAI: This is in line with general reducing risk across the risk while liquidating the minimum amount of capital (only a few thousand dollars of liquidation fees) in comparison to the 300bps for USDC.
V3 Borrow Cap Recommendations (Fast-track)
We voted YAE: This is in line with the supply caps pushed through earlier and believe that the updated metrics are beneficial to the security of the protocol as a whole.
We voted YES: This is appropriate as Aave transitions away from v1/2 and to solely focus on v3. We believe the upkeep of v1 is too much a strain and should just be depreciated.
We voted WBTC: As Paul highlighted, WBTC and BTC are two fundamentally different assets and if we have the ability to price WBTC using a WBTC oracle, we should do that instead of the unwrapped asset.
We voted YAE: We are very happy with the team’s work so far and think the new ask in terms of compensation is reasonable and fair. We think the increased number of eyes covering in the short run is good for competition and leads to more efficient outcomes. Going forward, will need a further emphasis on budget as more and more players cover more.
We voted YAE: Penn Blockchain is in full support of this. Being a past recipient, we see the value this provides and thanks Shreyas for all his past work. We’re looking forward to @0xbilll and are confident he will lead the team well.
Risk Parameter Updates for Aave V3 Optimism Market (2022-12-29)
We voted YAE: We read the reasoning in the forums and agree with the point of having SOME cap vs none. Whether that’s 100k or even less at 14k, whatever it is, starting with ensuring a high cap is immediately passed is critical in our opinion. We believe the 100k high cap that has been proposed is a good start and further decreasing/changes can be discussed with a “hedge” in place.
We voted YES: Looking forward to the momentus passing of this vote. V3 has proven itself to be the best way forward and are looking forward to the main market incorporating the lastest version as well!