[TEMP CHECK] Qualify the security incident 04-11-2023 as a shortfall event

I also have paid 30% interest in USDC, should the governance use the safety fund?

Thank you for your comment @CryptoInvest .

As mentioned earlier in this post, there is a governance process, where If there is sufficient consensus on this issue, a TEMP CHECK will be created, and feedback will be collected from the community to determine what should be done in this situation and the subsequent steps to be taken.

However, I would like to point out that the concept of the Safety Module and its usage should not be invoked lightly, as it is a very restrictive term. A strict criteria must be established to avoid unnecessary and inefficient use. In this case, after analyzing all the provided information, we still think the impact does not have sufficient magnitude to activate the Safety Module. Nevertheless, we will make sure all voices are heard and that the process is followed, no matter it’s direction.

Following governance guidelines,

This proposal has been escalated to the TEMP CHECK Snapshot stage, voting starts tomorrow.

1 Like

Esteemed members of the AAVE community:

Upon deep reflection and consideration of the recent discourse, particularly the insightful points raised by Raphael, I find myself compelled to advocate for the activation of the safety module in response to the incident.

It is imperative to recognize that, in decentralized finance, the strength of our protocols lies not just in their technical robustness but in the unwavering adherence to our governance principles. The issue at hand, though seemingly minor in terms of financial impact, poses a significant question about our commitment to these principles. Raphael’s arguments highlight a crucial perspective - the magnitude of loss should not dictate our course of action, but rather the principle that all users, irrespective of their stake, deserve equal protection under our governance.

This incident, while limited in scope, provides a pivotal opportunity for us to reinforce our community values. It’s a matter of principle, respecting the governance rules we have collectively agreed upon. Ignoring the losses, however small, sets a concerning precedent and could erode trust in our ecosystem. Our response to this situation will be a testament to our commitment to fairness, transparency, and the rule of law within our community.

In conclusion, while I understand and respect the differing viewpoints, particularly the cautionary stance taken by respected community members like MarcZeller, I firmly believe that the activation of the safety module in this instance aligns with our long-term vision and the foundational values of AAVE. It is a proactive step in maintaining the integrity and trust of our platform, ensuring that all members of our community feel equally valued and protected.

Thank you for considering this perspective.

1 Like


How to vote technically speaking?

And are the votes of equal weighting? (eg. $1m balance vs $1 balance the vote counts as the same from a single wallet?)

The more tokens you have, the more voting power you have :+1:

How is this fair?

So a user with $1,000,000 fund deposited has LESS SAY than a user with $10 fund deposited with 1 AAVE token?

Why is there no reply on how to vote?

The voting token for the Aave DAO is Aave and stkAAVE.

Vote is based on how many Aave and stkAAVE you have. A user can have 10M$ in assets but only 5 AAVE, those will be its voting power. On the other half, a user can have 20$ assets but 1000 Aave, so its voting power will be bigger compared to the other user.

How is this even fair?

Users dont even have a fair say then in this case.

An outsider can just buy AAVE token and influence the vote.

How is this voting system community oriented???

The Aave code is open-source. If you want to implement a communist version of Aave through a fork, be my guest.

Meanwhile, people with more skin in the game and/or the trust of many voices (delegates) will have a louder voice.

Call me an evil capitalist, but I won’t spend 12-15 hours a day working for a “kumbaya, one person one vote” kibbutz.



In reality, for the “vote” that takes place, it does not represent the opinion of the people who “deposit”, or the people who “borrow”.

It merely represents the opinion of the people who holds AAVE.


That’s not accurate, users who deposit or borrow may also have Aave token or stkAAVE as well, and therefore, their opinion is also being represented.

If users of the protocol (as you say, people who deposit or people who borrow) want to be active members and get their voice represented in Governance, directly or indirectly, they are free to do so, by holding Aave token or stkAAVE and activelly participating in this Forum, as well as by voting proposals etc, or by delegating those to delegates who will work on their best interest.

“may also have”


“may also not have”

You have been answered when asked about Aave token and governance. This is not a debate rather a statement about how governance works, and you can have your opinion and share it, which you did, but this thread is not to discuss this topic, as its for other matters. Thank you @martymcfly

El El vie, 17 nov 2023 a las 20:48, martymcfly via Aave <notifications@aave.discoursemail.com> escribió:

Of course I can, and I did, without you saying whether i can, or can not.

Thank you @XTG1724

If someone wanted to buy enough tokens to “manipulate” AAVE, the price would go parabolic (+ they would most likely be unwilling to make their tokens worthless by exploiting the protocol)

On the other hand, you’re telling us it would be fairer for a billionaire having nothing to do with the DAO / not holding any AAVE to simply supply 10B to take over the protocol and rekt everyone

That’s common sense, the protocol can obviously not be designed this way :sweat_smile:


I am here to talk about the actual reality, not a made up hypothesis where someone would whale buy $10B of AAVE token (why did you stop at $10B, why not $10T?)

In reality (as of now), the top 4 addresses with 200k token decide the vote outcome, thats 4 people with $20m deciding on the balance of $8.5bn

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, but glad I found out so i can act accordingly.

With 95.79% NAY vote on the snapshot vote, this proposal is now archived.


Since you seem new here, and I’m going to assume good faith, I encourage you to read more about the governance process, particularly delegation.

1 Like