# rsETH Incident Report (April 20, 2026) **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [April 20, 2026, 8:12pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/rseth-incident-report-april-20-2026/24580 "2026-04-20T20:12:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 137
**Author:** ![noisewar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/73ab20/32.png) [@noisewar](https://governance.aave.com/u/noisewar)\ **Post date:** [April 23, 2026, 4:58am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/rseth-incident-report-april-20-2026/24580/137 "2026-04-23T04:58:57Z")
> [@MconnectDAO](#): > > Kelp designed rsETH as a unified OFT supply with pari passu redemption rights. That’s not ambiguous. If they now reprice L2 rsETH differently, they’re not “applying bridge risk” they’re making a post-hoc decision to transfer value from L2 holders to L1 holders. That’s a governance and legal problem, not a technical one. Absolutely not true. Again, show us in their Terms of Service or other documentation, marketing, or public statements that affirm pari passu redemption rights. They _implied_ it by association with L0’s OFT standard, but they did not ever guarantee it or even reference it. The question is if a court of law would uphold the distinction. Based on _Ripple vs SEC_, the friction and sophistication of just being on an L2, and plausible deniability by Kelp, it’s very likely they would indeed recognize asset class distinction. This might have been different if L2 rsETH was minted off L2 ETH, like how USDC is setup, but the fact is L2 rsETH is an adapter escrow IOU, not a direct claim on the underlying asset. --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/rseth-incident-report-april-20-2026/24580)._