In general, it seems to me that you’re being very hand wavy as to Aave’s responsibility in this matter. This not only muddles the debate about how to respond with the Safety Module but also impedes taking a deeper look into where Aave failed and how it could become more robust going forward.
As an example, let’s take the oracle issue, which you describe as follows:
Here you’re framing it as if Chainlink in fact provided feeds for the bridged assets but they just happened to use the price of the underlying for strategic decisions. This is simply wrong. The fact is that Chainlink doesn’t offer feeds for those bridged assets and Aave governance decided to treat them as if they were the underlying. This is basic and is both a failure from a governance and technical perspective. And you should describe it as such.
Exactly, if this is part of the intention we should be as critical as possible and clearly expose where Aave failed. You haven’t done this, or at least not properly.
The fact that the Harmony plan won’t solve the issue has nothing to do with whether Aave is assuming its responsibility in the issue. Not at all. And by the way, I never said the Aave community, I said BGD and Monet. Fyi: I’m part of the Aave community (as a stkAAVE holder) and have no funds whatsoever on Harmony, so I’m not coming for funds, my intention with the post was to incite a deeper reflection into what went wrong from the Aave perspective, which seemed lacking.