@litostarr — This is a well-structured architectural complement to the collateral-tier framework I proposed two days ago. The two proposals address different layers of the same problem, and I think they’re stronger together.
The distinction as I see it:
My proposal defines how assets get classified — a seven-factor scoring system (redemption posture, rehypothecation depth, bridge hops, regulatory posture, oracle fragility, volatility, liquidity depth) that produces a deterministic tier assignment and maps each tier to LTV/LT ceilings. It answers: “What risk tier is this asset, and what parameters should it receive?”
Your proposal defines how the protocol contains damage when a tier fails — siloed liquidity pools, tier-specific safety modules, and decoupled L1/L2 oracle feeds. It answers: “Once we know the tiers, how do we ensure a Tier 3 failure doesn’t propagate to Tier 1?”
Siloing without scoring is compartments without labels. Scoring without siloing is labels without walls. Both are incomplete in isolation.
To make this concrete: under my framework, wrsETH (L2 bridged) scores 12/14 — Tier 4, ineligible. The rsETH L1 native scores 9/14 — upper-bound Tier 3. Your silo architecture would have physically trapped the $123.7M–$230.1M in bad debt within the Tier 3/4 compartment instead of exposing USDC and ETH depositors in the unified pool. My framework would have prevented the 93% LTV listing in the first place. Applied together, you get defense in depth: the scoring prevents the miscalibration; the silo contains the residual risk.
One gap I’d flag: your proposal references “Asset Safety Tiers” but doesn’t specify a classification methodology. Without a deterministic scoring system, the question of which silo an asset lands in becomes a governance judgment call — exactly the kind of subjective process that listed wrsETH at 93% LTV across 11 deployments. The seven-factor score I proposed (or an equivalent from @LlamaRisk) would give your silo architecture the objective intake criteria it needs.
On the revenue trade-off question you pose: I ran the numbers in my proposal using ACI’s own retrospective data. The interim LTV cuts I proposed (10–13 point reductions on Tier 3 LRTs) imply a ~$7–15M/year revenue haircut against $145M in 2025 protocol revenue — call it 5–10%. Your siloing would add friction on top of that by fragmenting liquidity. But one incident just destroyed $8.45B in TVL in 48 hours. The combined revenue cost of both proposals is a rounding error against the realized loss.
I’d be interested in working together on a unified framework — my scoring as the classification layer feeding into your containment architecture. If @LlamaRisk and @AaveLabs are open to it, a joint proposal that covers both “which tier?” and “what happens when a tier breaks?” would be a more complete answer than either proposal alone.
-– Robby Greenfield IV | Tokédex