[Temp Check] Aave V3 MVP Deployment on Neon EVM Mainnet

[Albierto]

Hey @joeh , as you’re liaising with the team, I’d appreciate if they could also shed light on this particular discovery. I believe it’s a crucial issue that warrants caution and therefore, I’m tagging @MarcZeller as well, to gauge Aave’s perspective on this matter.

In my further research into the connections between CyberFund and Satoshi Fund, which appear to have shared co-founders including the CEO of Neon, I stumbled upon Marina Gurieva’s past political involvement: https://events.vedomosti.ru/speakers/gureva-marina-8211 According to a translator, she was part of the Industrial Policy and Entrepreneurship of Moscow city and was the Head of the Department of Strategic Planning and Investment Activities, potentially making her an ex-Politically Exposed Person (PEP).

1. Could her political past be the reason why she is avoiding social media presence?
2. It’s intriguing that following her political career, she became involved with CyberFund & Satoshi Fund.
   I am significantly concerned about the origin of the capital raised for these entities, as it might have been sourced from politically exposed individuals with funds of a questionable nature.
3. Is the Aave community at ease with the idea of deploying on a chain that has received funding from CyberFund, especially considering that the capital for CyberFund might have been sourced from individuals who could be classified as Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs)?
4. Considering that token unlocks are due in mid-summer, with over 15% of tokens held by early purchasers including CyberFund, I am concerned about Aave becoming a means to inflate the price of the Neon token, thereby benefiting CyberFund investors, who may include individuals qualifying as PEPs. The entire setup of CyberFund seems to be geared towards investing in projects, then offloading them onto the community. Is this something the Aave community would condone?

In my previous role in tradfi, it was standard practice to scrutinize the origin of funds, and I’m applying that same diligence here. I understand we’re not tasked with vetting the background of funds, but if we have relevant information and fail to act on it responsibly, we inadvertently support such practices. We could potentially be advantaging individuals associated with funds of a questionable nature, and what’s more concerning is that we would be doing so with full awareness. The transition from a political career to co-founding a fund, particularly in a country with a high corruption index like Russia (https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/russia), should indeed raise some concerns.

I’d prefer to protect Aave’s reputation, considering the incredible community and project we’ve built. Neon appears to require significant changes in its internal governance. While these revelations might impact current investors, my priority is to protect new participants from potential schemes. I’m open to revisiting my stance once Neon addresses its internal governance and technical issues.

[AndreyFalaleev]

Hi Aave DAO, I’m Andrey the co-founder of Neon. Following the discussions, I would like to address the questions raised around Neon.

1. Chainlink Integration: Neon is not a blockchain but rather operates as a set of smart contracts on Solana and they read the official Chainlink price feeds from there. The team built their own smart contracts, which read Chainlink’s official price feeds on Solana.
   This approach resulted in a faster solution to extend Chainlink support to Neon EVM than the direct integration by Chainlink. The contracts are fully audited by Halborn and the report can be found here: chainlink-neon/audit/20230315-halborn.pdf at main · hoodieshq/chainlink-neon · GitHub

2. NeonPass: Since Neon EVM operates as a smart contract on Solana utilizing the same SPL tokens there which allows transferring tokens between Solana and Neon as standard Solana transactions. However, crafting these transactions accurately is not straightforward. To simplify this process for developers, the Neon Transfer SDK has been introduced (GitHub - neonlabsorg/neon-client-transfer) designed to streamline the creation of Solana transactions for the transfer of tokens between Solana and Neon. For end-users, the process has been made even more accessible through the implementation of a user interface, NeonPass. It essentially leverages the Neon Transfer SDK to generate these transactions, offering a user-friendly method for transferring tokens between Solana and Neon.

   In short Neon Pass is a user-friendly way to create Solana transactions to transfer Solana <> Neon tokens.

3. Wormhole Integration: There were no technical hurdles with Wormhole integration but the decision was mainly driven by different financial perspectives at that time. We conducted an in-depth technical study, taking into account the short-list of bridges and considerations from the Uniswap report, to choose deBridge as the alternative solution for mainly the reasons mentioned above by @alex_deBridge. The Neon team is considering Wormhole integration as a complementary solution.

4. Neon DAO: Regarding the State of the DAO, the Foundation started a gradual process to release the DAO infrastructure, which is partially live already: the forum is accessible, and votes can be made. More details can be found below:

   1. DAO smart contract which is based on the Solana SPL already developed.
   2. Governance audits:
      neon-spl-governance/audit at main · neonevm/neon-spl-governance · GitHub
   3. Governance forum: https://forum.neonevm.org/
   4. UI (also used to manage locked tokens): https://vote.neonevm.org/

   Technically the DAO was ready for launch from the first day of Neon EVM mainnet launch in July 2023. Due to the many regulatory changes in 2023, especially in the US, significant time and effort were required to prepare a legally secure structure of the DAO. The legal and compliance reviews have been completed and the Neon team is now in a position to run a phased launch of the DAO (including strategic and operational committees) that will roll-out by the end of Q1 2024.

5. RPC end-points: For technical reasons, adding a new RPC end-point/Neon Proxy is done via whitelisting. We use pessimistic iterative execution, which in case of an unscrupulous operator can lead to blocking of a large number of accounts and suspension of user transactions. That being said, we’re looking to decentralize the RPC endpoint / Neon Proxy in the following steps:

   1. Shift the management of the whitelist to the Neon DAO
   2. Eliminate the technical constraint and get rid of the whitelist.

   It’s possible to add more RPCs to the whitelist, but currently, it doesn’t seem necessary because:

   1. The Neon Proxy isn’t a security layer for Neon; it merely forwards Ethereum-like transactions to Solana. Solana itself handles transaction execution and security.
   2. From an operational standpoint, running more than two nodes isn’t cost-effective. This would require an increase in transaction volume and account numbers, which we expect to rapidly grow during 2024 as more dApps deploy on NeonEVM.

6. TPS: The TPS on NeonScan represents the current on-chain activities, not the technical limits of the infrastructure. On the ecosystem expansion side, we are working with multiple dApps for deployment on Neon EVM mainnet during Q1. We have a pipeline of various DeFi projects that will be announced during January and February which will contribute to increasing on-chain activity and set the foundation for more complex solutions built on top of those primitives.

7. Performance: Some complex transactions requiring large amounts of gas on Neon EVM take longer to confirm than simpler txs. Technically what’s going on is, Neon EVM blocks the whole contract with all data (variables) inside of the contract while a transaction is being confirmed. We have already started developing ways to reduce this bottleneck by implementing a strategy that doesn’t block the whole contract but blocks only data used in the transaction. For example, if a transaction uses 3 balances in an ER20 contract, the old strategy blocks the whole contract with all balances inside of the contract, the new strategy blocks only 3 balances, all other balances in the ERC20 contract are available for use in other transactions. This is in active development and expected to be on mainnet within Q1.

[joeh]

Hey Albierto!
What an interesting way to wake up from a nap looks like a lot is going on inside Neon. It’s refreshing to see that @AndreyFalaleev has came and posted on here and I’m grateful that he has entered the discourse, thanks for joining in

This looks like a relatively interesting conversation that needs to be had and I am probably going to have to leave this to Neon going forward but it’s a very interesting discovery.

Just to put it out there, I did click on the link you gave me and google translate did give me the same thing you mentioned, I did notice that there is an article top right of that page ( 100 шагов к благоприятному инвестиционному климату. Новые ориентиры для регионов ) and if you open it, the following page shows that she was part of a Department of Science? There is another link directly under that previous profile page that seems to bring me to some kind of search ( «Ведомости» — ведущее деловое издание России ), and there is another article again around half way down the page which dates 2012 which shows that she is part of a department of science, but when I click on it it says the article doesn’t exist which is a bit weird, but googling the title of the article “100 шагов к благоприятному инвестиционному климату. Новые ориентиры для регионов” brought me back to the link that was on the top right of the profile page.

I googled the name of the department which seems to be the phrase “промышленной политики и предпринимательства города Москвы” and the first result brings me to ( https://www.mos.ru/dpir/ ) which looks like a department that appears to do a lot of work with “young entrepreneurs” ( translated page: Органы власти / Сайт Москвы ).

I then followed the rabbit hole to do similar research via google and stumbled upon her Linkedin profile and then exhaled a sigh of relief as and it doesn’t seem to be any kind of secret because it’s posted directly on her experience: https://www.linkedin.com/in/marina-guryeva-1390a03b/details/experience/

Head of Strategic Planning and Investments Office
Head of Strategic Planning and Investments Office
Department of Science, Industrial Policy and Entrepreneurship of MoscowDepartment of Science, Industrial Policy and Entrepreneurship of Moscow
2011 - 2013 · 2 yrs2011 - 2013 · 2 yrs
Investment Infrastructure Development (assessed 20+ investment projects; by 2014 four sites received the status of the special area and attracted $170+M of private investments), Business Environment Improvement (solved 600+ business problems, changed 10+ legislative acts, streamlined 5+ public services), Event Management (managed participation of the Moscow City Government in 10+ forums and trade fairs; launched and oversaw operating activities of the Open Innovations Forum (~4k participants), the Moscow Urban Forum (~2k participants)), Laws Enforcement

She also posted being a “Referent” for the “Ministry for Economic Development of the Russian Federation” which I have no idea what that is either.

Anyway I think it would be useful for Marina to give her personal take on this as I’m also quite interested to learn more, but although it looks interesting, it doesn’t seem to be as complicated as you might suggest.

Edit: I recall earlier that Marina doesn’t appear on the CyberFund website and just looking back at her linked in shows that she has left the fund in 2020, this might be valuable to the questions that you had asked earlier regarding her ongoing relationship to CyberFund and her role in Neon.

[joeh]

Thought I’d add a screenshot for people who can’t access linked in

[Albierto]

Hello @joeh ,
I appreciate you sharing the screenshot and thank you for your efforts. You’re actually a step ahead of me this time, as the team hasn’t yet responded to my inquiries about conflicts of interest, choosing instead to provide evasive answers. I was also planning to make an inquiry about Cybercoredev.

So, I’m curious about the status of Cybercoredev, where the CEO of Neon Labs was a director. Did it meet a similar end as Commun? We’ve noted that it’s the same project spearheaded by the same founding team. Moreover, in an article discussing new members of the Free TON community (Новый состав первоначальных членов сообщества Free TON | EverKit), Cybercoredev is listed alongside P2P and Lomashuk as excluded members. From the older members, only Nil Foundation, part of CyberFund’s investment portfolio, remains.

Also, a post was shared on the Twitter account of Cybercoredev (https://twitter.com/cybercoredev?lang=en) mentioning a Weekly Ton Meetup. This leads me to question the whereabouts of the CEO and whether she will address these issues. I’m also curious about @ACI and @MarcZeller views on these findings. It appears that there were previously two startups, both of which resulted in failures.

[joeh]

Hey @Albierto
I think I’m having more fun than I should learning with you about what looks like a complex history of the CEO and the web of connections that Neon has. Thankfully this is public information so I have hope that it is all in good faith.

I just clicked through on the link you sent me and it seems that CyberCoreDev was remodelled to become CyberWay, does that seem correct? https://cyberway.io

It looks like it was some form of validator offering but clicking through to their Github on the footer and Twitter looks like developments stopped around 2022 and social media stopped around 2020.

My theory is that that maybe this was a project spun up to capture an opportunity of the launch of the TON blockchain where on Wiki seems to have had development and launch during the same window of time that this project seemed to live for and seize ( The Open Network - Wikipedia )

I wonder if CyberCoreDev was as you mentioned - a project that was disassembled/discontinued due to a failed market fit or maybe discontinued for other reasons relating to the complex legal challenges that surrounded the TON entirely, as I remember this fiasco unfolding back in the day but I don’t remember much about the timeline.

I’m sure there are a lot of founders that have past failures and I think even in traditional businesses failure is generally a stepping stone to success, but most importantly it will be about how those failures are handled like the exemplary example that you provided earlier of your own past experience and going the extra mile to refund investors. This is something that I can’t seem to find online so I wonder if these are self funded exercises, un-funded experiments or if there have been some form of call through inventor interests to enter these kind of markets.

I suppose we both have a lot of questions and it’s quite easy to speculate but I’m sure if there was a trail of destruction prior to Neon that existed through Marina’s involvements it would be more likely that we would see an ongoing effort of affected people trying to call for justice, but I’m yet to come across this.

Nevertheless I think information is power and I feel that learning more about ones past and associations is quite valuable, and it’s certainly valuable in my perspective to learn more

[joeh]

I forgot to say that I’m hopeful that now @AndreyFalaleev has joined the conversation that, although the conversation may extend for longer, I’m hopeful that they will produce even more valuable answers and closure to these questions that you seek answers for.

I think he’s done a great job providing a considerable amount of information that I wasn’t aware of and having someone at this level is always valuable to the conversation and provides deep insight to questions like those we both have.

[Albierto]

Thanks again, my friend!
I definitely agree that knowledge is power, and I’m eagerly awaiting the information from the Neon team. Up to now, they’ve overlooked some of my inquiries, especially those related to conflicts of interest. It often seems that a lack of response indicates there’s something to hide. Their unwillingness to even confirm the failure of the Wormhole proposal twice is gradually diminishing my hopes for transparency.

[joeh]

Been a real pleasure, likewise!
I’m also an advocate for transparency so I’m sure we will have closure in due course

[Albierto]

I share your hopes and believe that my efforts are a form of public service to the community and the broader space, aimed at preventing harm from malicious actors. I left my banking position in 2019 to join this industry because I highly value transparency. To me, Aave represents the epitome of transparency, and I’m confident that with so many unresolved issues at hand, the community will make an informed and appropriate decision. Thank you for this engaging discussion; I genuinely value your insights.

[Kene_Anode]

While there has been a bit of controversy during the discussion phase of this proposal, all the relevant issues have been addressed by a Member of the Neon Foundation.

Therefore we are glad to support this proposal. It is however important to note that there is still the ARFC stage which will necessitates deeper investigation.

[WintermuteGovernance]

There has been sufficient clarification from the Neon team regarding the most pressing concerns. We will support this proposal at the TEMP CHECK stage but will wait for a deeper analysis from Aave’s Risk Providers.

Our main concerns will be the proposed caps and relevant risk parameters for the proposed assets, given the low level of TVL which may affect liquidations.

Disclaimer: Wintermute is an investor in Neon.

[Asango]

Excellent technical discussion so far. Subject to risk parameters being met, I support this deployment. Solana ecosystem is attracting a lot of mobile first young people and Neon offers the fastest and lowest risk path for Aave to participate in and benefit from the growth of the Solana ecosystem.

[ACI]

Following snapshot monitoring, the TEMP CHECK Snapshot has passed with YAE as winning option with 384K votes.

As the TEMP CHECK Snapshot indicates positive sentiment, next step will be publication of an ARFC for further discussion, including risk parameter evaluation network analysis and finalization of the proposal.

Therefore this proposal is moving to the ARFC stage so this thread will be closed soon.

[cryptorekted]

As a long term user of Aave, I would prefer to see Neon go through some period of time to ensure that it is robust before deploying Aave there. Interesting tech!