Rationale: I support these changes as a way to reduce bad debt risk and optimize capital use on Aave.
Cutting interest rates to 1% for high bad debt markets will help borrowers pay off their debts more easily. For assets like BUSD or FEI with high bad debt, adjusting the interest rates will match their risk levels.
Other adjustments are also reasonable to prevent new bad debt and reduce the impact of illiquid assets.
Rationale: Recognizing HyperLend as a friendly fork will bring value to Aave and its users (rev share, airdrop, HPL supply at TGE) while set precedent for other forks to share revenue. Voting yes!
Rationale: Same reason with Snapshot vote. This change will boost liquidity as users can reopen ETH collateral positions, bringing more assets back to the platform.
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason on Snapshot. It can help to optimize risk management and reduce delays in updating supply caps. Aave will respond quickly to user demand on Arbitrum.
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason on ARFC. Aave is doing the right thing to protect the ecosystem and users from potential risks like bridge attacks or vulnerabilities.
Rationale: Aave can win on both liquidity growth and attracting new users.
Plus, since rsETH isn’t borrowable, there’s less risk of liquidity drains or forced sell-offs. Voted yes!
Rationale: Aave can have a chance to attract more users from a promising L2 like Soneium. The $4M incentive alsos can boost TVL and revenue. Voted yes on TEMP CHECK stage!
Rationale: Voting yes with same reason on Snapshot! Aave can manage GHO’s risk better with this proposal. Plus, expanding GHO on Ethereum will create more opportunities for trading and borrowing for users.
Rationale: Voted YES to onboard tBTC on Aave Arbitrum. It will bring more Bitcoin into DeFi, add revenue, and make Aave less reliant on centralized wrapped BTC.
Rationale: Voted in favor on Snapshot for the same reason. This is the final step for Aave to fully shut down V2 :)
I support these changes (disabling borrowing, increasing Slope 2 to 300%, setting the Base Rate to 20%, and raising the RF to 99%) as a way to reduce bad debt risk and optimize capital use on Aave.
Rationale: Voted yes as same reason on Snapshot. Aave can win on both liquidity growth and attracting new users.
Plus, since rsETH isn’t borrowable, there’s less risk of liquidity drains or forced sell-offs.
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason of TEMPCHECK. Recognizing HyperLend as a friendly fork will bring value to Aave and its users (rev share, airdrop, HPL supply at TGE) while set precedent for other forks to share revenue.
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason of TEMPCHECK. Aave can boost revenue by capturing MEV. It also optimizes the liquidation process while protecting users from unfair risks.
Rationale: Giving this a shot. I voted yes on TEMPCHECK. Adding stS to Aave v3 on Sonic will bring value and unlock growth opportunities for Aave DAO, helping attract liquidity and strengthen Aave’s position on Sonic.
Rationale: Voted in favor. This fixes the previous setup without adding risks. Unfreezing LBTC and wrsETH lets users use them again without disruption.
Rationale: Lowering stablecoin borrow rates to 6.5% makes Aave more competitive with other lending platforms. This makes improves Aave’s competitiveness in the market.
Rationale: I support this proposal in TEMP CHECK. Aave can get more liquidity, earn more from fees, and attract new users from Lista. That said, I am keen to see more on lisUSD’s price stability and long-term liquidity commitment beyond the initial $1M.
Rationale: This proposal can make treasury management smoother and faster while keeping things secure. Aave DAO can stay in control but move with more flexibility. Voted yes!
Rationale: Voted yes with same reason on Snapshot vote. Aave can boost revenue by capturing MEV. It also optimizes the liquidation process while protecting users from unfair risks.
Rationale: GHO has been with Aave for almost two years. Aave put in a lot of time and effort to make it a recognizable part of the ecosystem. Changing the name to USDA or others would make it feel generic, like just another stablecoin.
Also some users might get confused, and it could even make people question Aave DAO’s stability.
But more than that, the name isn’t the problem, I believe what we should focus is growing liquidity and adoption for GHO.
It could dilute AAVE and add sell pressure on AAVE because these teams might not be motivated to hold. Plus, projects with weak tokens might push to get “acqui-hired” just to dump AAVE. No long-term commitment from these teams either
