LBS Blockchain Society Delegate Platform

Delegate Platforms
222

[TEMP CHECK] Gas Fee Rebate for On-Chain Votes

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

As the authors of this proposal, we will vote YES in favour.

223

Risk Parameter Updates for Aave V3 Polygon (2023-04-21)

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Given that utilisation of EURS is at 89% and the supply cap increase meets the conditions outlined in the v3 Cap Updates Framework that the community has agreed with, this proposal is sensible and we are in agreement with it. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of it.

224

Upgrade Aave V3 pools to Aave V3.0.2

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Given that the unification of codebases across deployments reduces maintenance costs and increases the efficiency of Aave, and that the codebase has been checked and certified by Certora and Sigma Prime, we are aligned with this proposal and will vote YES in favour.

225

Increase SupplyCap stMATIC Polygon & wETH Arbitrum

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

The proposal aims to increase the supply cap of stMATIC on Polygon from 21M units to 25M units. Given that the utilisation of stMATIC has reached 75%, the cap increase matches Chaos Labs’ Updated Supply and Borrow Cap Methodology, and Chaos is also in favour, we think this proposal is logical and are in favour of it. We are not in favour of increasing the supply cap to 37.5M units as proposed by Llama, given Chaos’ analysis that bridged liquidity is not used to liquidate positions often, and that stMATIC is used to borrow stablecoins which may lead to liquidity and price volatility risk. Lastly, we are also in favour of the wETH supply cap increase that we already voted in favour of here. Therefore, we will vote YES In favour of this proposal as well.

226

Add wstETH to Polygon Aave v3

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

This is the on-chain vote for this Snapshot proposal that we voted in favour of according to our rationale posted here. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this AIP as well.

227

BAL Interest Rate Upgrade

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

We support the increase in BAL interest rates to move it in line with comparable liquidity pools deployed on other protocols, and improve utilisation and revenue from BAL vaults to capture the strong demand.

228

WAVAX Borrow Cap Update - V3 Avalanche - 04.21.2023

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

The above adjustment follows the borrow cap methodology published by Chaos Labs before, so we don’t have any objection. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal.

229

[ARFC] - Chaos Labs Risk Parameter Updates - Aave V3 Polygon - 2023.04.23

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

The adjustment makes those asset classes to be utilised in a more efficient way. The procedure that Chaos Labs follows to generate the parameters is well defined and widely agreed, so we will vote YES in favour of it, especially since there is no effect on project VaR and EVaR.

230

[ARFC] MaticX Supply Cap Increase Polygon v3

Vote Result: Option 2 - 29.3M supply cap

Rationale

The recent spike of MaticX in Polygon signals an urgent demand for Aave to increase the supply cap for it, as Aave is an important component in this LST loop strategy. Based on Chaos Lab’s estimation in terms of liquidation penalty and price slippage, doubling the current supply to 29.3M is acceptable with sufficient growing space. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of Option 2.

231

[TEMP CHECK] Aave V3 GHO Genesis Parameters

Vote Result: ABSTAIN

Rationale

Both Options A and B have their pros and cons. We have summarised these below:

Option A

Pros

  • The initial launch phase of a stablecoin requires the build-up of deep secondary liquidity and needs to be able to scale. Option A has a higher Facilitator Bucket and lower borrow rate which will incentivise GHO to be borrowed and build up demand.
  • If the parameters end up being riskier, they can be modified later, and it may be better to tend towards scalability initially to increase adoption.
  • Given the status of Aave and hence GHO in the ecosystem, initial adoption and liquidity should be relatively high. Supply should be above natural demand plus a buffer margin. Looking at comparable liquidity of stablecoins, it seems as if $100M could be an appropriate Facilitator Bucket.

Cons

  • There is no liquidity and slippage analysis for Option A and it would be better to judge when it is completed.
  • Since the parameters can be adjusted quickly, it may be better to start off conservative.

Option B

Pros

  • Given the liquidity and slippage analysis from Gauntlet, a $50M bucket limit could initially be appropriate and could be scaled up quickly if need be.
  • There needs to be a comparable analysis done with Option A, and the level of organic demand can only be judged with time, so it may be better to be more conservative initially and a more bespoke bucket limit can be set when demand is more certain.

Cons

  • It is important to make GHO attractive to mint and generate organic demand and adoption. A lower bucket limit and higher borrow rate could disincentivise this.
  • Comparable demand for stablecoins combined with Aave’s market position make it relatively likely that GHO attains organic demand.

While we are leaning towards Option A, since this is a TEMP CHECK, it would be better to do a similar liquidity and slippage analysis for Option A as has been done for Option B. Therefore, we will await this analysis before the next vote and will vote ABSTAIN for this Snapshot vote.

232

[ARFC] Aave V2 Interest Rate Curve Changes (2023-04-21)

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

With reasonable elasticity estimation for Aave users, we believe that the model will work efficiently in explaining the short-term and long-term effects after the IR rate changes. The proposed IR curves are well-balanced between risk and revenue, incorporating the recent utilization rate accordingly. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal.

233

[ARFC] Polygon v2 - Parameter Update

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Given that the current utilisation for certain assets is 100% (CRV, GHST, LINK), we should raise the borrowing cost. We suggest going with option 2 because it results in a higher borrowing cost, which will discourage users from borrowing on V2 and allows more space for the migration to V3. Moreover, since Option 2 (as with the other options) generates no significant additional risk according to Gauntlet, we are in favour of Option 2.

234

Aave Bug Bounty Program on Immunefi

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Aave is a complex protocol with an ever-evolving codebase and there are vulnerabilities that could emerge often from new (or even existing) code. A bug bounty program would incentivise security researchers to continuously assess Aave’s codebase and provide incentives for hackers to disclose bugs as well. The Immunefi team has taken feedback on board and agreed to create a more granular reward system and adapt their methodology to align with that of Aave. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal.

235

Aave Metis V3

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Given that the suggested parameters for deployment on Metis have been presented jointly by Chaos and Gauntlet, and that all testing and preparation has been completed, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal.

236

Upgrade Aave V3 pools to Aave V3.0.2

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Given that the unification of codebases across deployments reduces maintenance costs and increases the efficiency of Aave, and that the codebase has been checked and certified by Certora and Sigma Prime, we are aligned with this proposal and will vote YES in favour.

237

Upgrade the safety module to v1.5 PART 1

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

This is the on-chain vote for this Snapshot proposal that we voted in favour of according to our rationale posted here. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal as well.

238

[TEMP CHECK] Allocation of 300k OP Received by Aave Grants DAO

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

The allocation of funds, with the 100k and 200k split and the subsequent allocation of the 100k towards Optimism-based projects seems fair. Moreover, the split between grants and bounties, with more funds being allocated towards grants, is also sensible. The OP tokens have been received by AGD and should be used to further Aave’s growth on Optimism, which is what the proposal seeks to do. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal.

239

[ARFC] Modify Snapshot Proposal Threshold

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Increasing the threshold will make the community operate in a more efficient way by reducing junk proposals, and 250 AAVE is a reasonable amount, so we are in favor of the proposal.

240

Gauntlet Recommendations for Polygon V3 and Arbitrum V3

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

Given that EURS’ borrow and supply caps have surpassed the 75% threshold, Gauntlet’s recommendations are sensible and we are in agreement, especially given that the conservative methodology has been applied in this case, leaving room for further expansion if required. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal.

241

Risk Parameter Updates Aave V3 Polygon

Vote Result: YES

Rationale

This is the on-chain vote for this Snapshot proposal that we voted in favour of according to our rationale posted here. Therefore, we will vote YES in favour of this proposal as well.