While I agree it is a lot, its still cheap compared to others, like the ones you mentioned for example.
The question we should ask ourselves is, do we want to go the “everyone can afford an Aave deployment” way and hope they get enough traction, or do we say we are the kingmaker and anyone who wants to go with Aave, has to pay a price for the best place to get and park liquidity?
We have seen it multiple times now, anyone choosing Aave, doesn’t matter if its an asset or a chain deployment, experienced the Aave effect.
So I do think its fair to ask for this amount and any chain, that isn’t able to generate (this) substantial revenue, is designated to die anyway.
We have followed the multichain path for several years with always taking the risk upfront, now its time to change this.
I also agree that exceptions can be made if presented to the DAO upfront.
I also would like to know what the rest of the DAO thinks of my proposal that the payment shall be made in GHO and Aave token.
Also want to echo @Nandy.eth comment.
What would be the exact terms for this Etherfi instance? Who will manage it etc?
This needs to be clarified before moving forward.