Proposal to Renamte GHO to USDA for Enhanced Clarity and Adoption - Final Comments

Governance
1

As the thread [TEMP CHECK] Proposal to Rename GHO to USDA for Enhanced Clarity and Adoption which was flowing flawless with discussion and interest from community was abrupt closed here are the final comments about in order to not leave anything behind and make sure community can put all their inputs to be shared with all interested token holders.

Hey @sid_areta, thanks for your question. Let me clarify.

Any group or third party organizations like Avara or another contributor crew, tasked with crunching numbers (costs, TVL upside, adoption gains) should be fairly compensated. I see that as a standard piece of the overall name-change budget, not an extra ask. If the DAO greenlights a quick analysis, we would bake in reasonable pay for their time, same as any service provider. No free labor expected here! The how could be as simple as a small mandate: scope out rebranding costs for tech/marketing versus potential wins (e.g. TVL bump). Avara is already in the mix with GHO branding . Why not tap them or a similar outfit with the know-how?

Support for Exploring the Idea

I hear you that it might not feel like there’s tons of support yet, but from the thread, I can count more individuals leaning toward at least exploring this (USDA, avUSD, GHO-backed suite ideas) than fully against it. Sure, big voting power might tilt the other way, but the chatter shows curiosity and folks see the mainstream appeal angle. That’s not a landslide, but it’s enough to suggest this isn’t dead in the water. Just saying there’s a pulse worth checking.

Check on the Snapshot vote how many individuals are voting in favour of the idea, despite the voting power ! That has something to tell.

I could slap together a solo analysis, but that’d be a half-baked way to tackle something this critical. I’m one voice with one lens. Doing it myself risks missing the market smarts, technical depth, or counterpoints others bring. A proper look needs diverse input: community members, service providers, maybe even outside DeFi brains. That’s why I’ve been pushing for a group effort. A simplistic take from me alone wouldn1t cut it for a decision this size.

Numbers Over Feelings

What I have been advocating isn’t about my passion for a name swap. It is about getting more concrete numbers to see if it’s feasible. I’d rather we decide based on data (cost now vs. $1B supply later) than lean on how much we like GHO’s ghost vibes. Feelings are great, but they don’t tell us if we’re leaving growth on the table. That’s all I’m after: a clear-eyed “yes” or “no” we can trust, not a hunch.

Respecting Priorities

If this isn’t your jam right now because growing Aave’s market lead is the hotter focus, no worries at all. I’m not suggesting this leapfrogs current opportunities (Horizon, etc.). Just that it runs in parallel. Plenty of others have piped up with valuable takes here, and I bet some would jump in to shape this if we gave it a nudge. I welcome your input on what’d make it tangible enough to bite on.

Thanks for keeping a honest and detailed feedback.

2

@FREDY Hi Fredy, just a comment, we did close the thread as it’s standard procedure when a proposal does not move forward after Snapshot vote, like in this case.

3

Hey @ACI thanks for the reply. I know moderating’s a juggling act! I was a bit surprised to see this thread closed so suddenly.

This discussion has been buzzing with high community interest, tons of back-and-forth, solid arguments on both sides, and from what I’ve tallied, a majority of individual posters (even with lower voting power) seem keen to at least explore the idea further.

Shutting it down now feels like cutting off a convo that’s still got legs, especially when plenty of other threads — some with way less chatter or heat — stay open for months without a vote. I’m not saying every post needs to drag on forever, but this one’s clearly struck a chord with folks.

I get that some high voting power members might not vibe with this proposal. Fair enough, not everyone has to. But rushing to close it just because of that feels off. There is a difference between voting a proposal down (totally legit) and locking the door on a discussion that’s still rolling with valuable input. It’s not about forcing the idea through. It is about letting the community hash it out properly. Stifling that risks sending a message that dissent from the top trumps open debate, which doesn’t feel very Aave to me.

Could we leave it open, even just to let it go a bit more? No pressure to agree, just to keep the floor open for those still weighing in.

Appreciate all you do to keep this place. Hope this lands in the spirit it is meant!

1 Like
4

@FREDY given there is less interest from the community to make changes for various reasons there is less need to keep the conversations in the decision making forum. Ofc this doesn’t mean that the there should not be any discussions, you are free to discuss these topics outside of the decision making forum directly with individuals who are interested in the topic and Temp Check again after some time (perhaps a year or so) if there is any new appetite. For now, the governance has spoken.

2 Likes