Personally being following the situation quite close, I support waiting without doing any changes, my rationale being:
- sETH/ETH dynamics are way more complex than their more visible secondary markets (e.g. Curve). It is pretty clear that as the price of stETH in secondary markets decreases, there is hidden demand that will price it back higher.
- Those 3 positions (mainly the riskier in terms of HF) are clearly platforms plugin into Aave. Their sophistication in protecting their position is higher than average users, given that they execute decently complex strategies.
- Even with important price drops of multiple assets, the so-called “de-peg” is at the moment around 4%, and there is not really any fundamental aspect to believe a major correlation would happen (it can of course, but by understanding how stETH works).
Regarding the proposed measures, my opinion:
- Freeze the stETH market. AGAINST. The “risky” positions in the protocol are already open, freezing the asset will only affect new positions being open. A correction here, Aave v2 Ethereum has an emergency admin role, currently the Guardian, which can freeze (stop borrowing/deposit) instantaneously, for situations of extreme need (probably not this, but important to take into account).
- Increase LT for stETH to 90%. MAYBE. I would not support 90%, it is too high, but it is the factually effective measure, as will make currently open positions safe. But this is a major change, once higher, putting it down is a major endeavor, and there will be almost no other chances over 90% (or even 85%).
- Pause ETH borrowing. AGAINST. Freezing stETH is probably more effective, and this could potentially affect other parties borrowing against other collaterals.