Rationale: Monad’s high throughput, low latency architecture is well positioned for fintech and onchain neobank integrations.
Establishing Aave early as the core liquidity layer increases the probability of capturing long term credit and stablecoin demand rather than short term mercenary liquidity.
Rationale: This is not an easy decision. I am voting yes.
ACI has been a key contributor to Aave governance and has shown strong principles in focusing on what is best not only for the protocol but also for $AAVE token holders.
Appreciate all the work. And best luck with the future endevours!
Rationale: Voting yes. This expands the existing risk agent framework and adds CAPO to keep parameters for yield bearing assets closer to real market dynamics.
Rationale: Support launching a dedicated Aave V4 bug bounty program on Sherlock.
Aave V4 introduces new architecture and attack surfaces, so having a dedicated, always-on bug bounty program is an important additional security layer alongside audits and formal verification.
This is a necessary recalibration given declining revenue and a projected deficit.
Dropping to $30M still keeps Aave consistently buying back, but without putting unnecessary pressure on the treasury.
Prioritizing ETH funded buybacks is a sound treasury optimization, leveraging existing exposure and correlation with AAVE to reduce stablecoin outflows.
Rationale: Clear protocol fault led to unjust liquidations, with users bearing no responsibility.
Fully reimbursing them is the right decision to uphold trust, reinforce Aave’s credibility, and demonstrate strong accountability in edge case failures.
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason on ARFC stage. This proposal improves the efficiency of the Safety Module while maintaining strong protocol security.
Rationale: V4 is a clear step in the right direction, the Hub and Spoke design and broader credit flexibility align well with where onchain finance is heading.
Rationale: Supports adding an always on bug bounty for Aave V4 via Sherlock.
The stake gated model is a practical way to reduce spam and keep focus on high severity issues. The 5% success based fee aligns costs with actual outcomes and avoids fixed overhead.
Rationale: Voted yes with the same reason on snapshot vote. Clear, enforceable licensing that protects V4 in the short term while preserving a path to open source.
DAO ownership and the CLA remove legal ambiguity and enable scalable, permissionless contributions.
Rationale: V4 is a step in the right direction, the Hub and Spoke design and broader credit flexibility align well with where onchain finance is heading. Voted yes!
Rationale: This is a clean rollover of PT USDe and sUSDe that has already proven to drive inflows. The conservative design keeps risk contained. Voted yes!
These changes are well aligned with the goal of safely deprecating Aave V2, a risk aware approach to reduce bad debt and ensure an orderly wind down of V2.
Increasing the offset ensures DAO properly acts as the first loss layer, reducing unnecessary slashing in normal liquidation regimes while still preserving slashing for true tail events.
Rationale: Vote yes. This enables cross-margin use of WETH, BTC.b, and wstETH while keeping eMode risk protections and using conservative parameters for safety.
Rationale: USSD is positioned to become a core stablecoin in the Sonic Labs ecosystem, onboarding it helps Aave capture early lending and borrowing demand around a strategic liquidity asset.
Final implementation should remain subject to satisfactory risk parameters at ARFC. I support the proposal in this Tempcheck phase!
Rationale: Adding USDe to Aave V3 MegaETH expands the stablecoin market with a proven asset and maintaining prudent risk controls through E-Mode restrictions. Voted yes!
Rationale: Adding GHO as a borrowable asset in these E-Modes strengthens its integration without introducing new collateral risk or changing core parameters.
Rationale: Voting yes on April Funding Update. This keeps funds organized, maintains runway, and makes sure incentives, audits, and ops can continue effectively.
Rationale: The propopsal adds a high demand asset and unlocks yield looping on MegaETH. Risk is contained through E Mode restrictions and conservative caps.
Risk control should come first. Preserving treasury assets and maintaining flexibility is more important than continuing buybacks while uncertainty remains.
Strengthening the DAO’s financial position now will better support confidence and long term resilience.
Rationale: Using part of the treasury to help resolve the rsETH shortfall can protect affected Aave markets, reduce broader contagion risk, and reinforce user confidence.
Rationale: A very necessary risk containment step following the incident. Liquidation is the cleanest way to lock funds, limit bad debt, and move assets under DAO control for recovery. I support the proposal!
Rationale: Appreciate LlamaRisk stepping in to ensure continuity during a critical transition, as well as the focus on building verifiable, DAO controlled risk infrastructure. I support the proposal!
Rationale: This is a simple tradeoff, drop a negligible fee, keep users from routing elsewhere.
Better swap execution means more activity stays inside Aave, where protocol revenue actually comes from. Voted yes!