My $AAVE Alignment proposal: Ownership. If you are an $AAVE token holder, you should check it out https://t.co/T9F8dwnmGs

I think it gives value to clarify to readers and Aave community members this type of misconception. My proposal has no intention/relation of creating a scenario where business counterparties to Aave must interact with different service providers, each with contradictory views.

Some extra points on my $AAVE Alignment: Ownership proposal: - This is not about any type of polarisation, it is about purely additive value and self-control for $AAVE. - This has no relation to dismissal or magnification of contribution merits; this is about $AAVE

One idea/argument discussed around here in recent days is: DAOs are a paradox, because the entity originally bootstrapping the DAO, after the DAO is fully independent operationally and financially, doesn't have a direct path for growth and monetisation. And this is not fair for

And to be more explicit, there would not be any Aave DAO product today, if the DAO itself would not be covering the cost of all protocol development expenses, risk providers, growth initiatives, treasury management, security, brand design, events, grants, etc, etc. We can play

The issue is that if the DAO doesn't have control of the brand and communication channels, it is not even clear to users who actually builds the products, and who funds them. On the Aave liquidity protocol vertical: - Aave v1 and v2 (2020-21). Aave Labs built it, funded from the

I will write on the Aave governance forum more extensively about my view on the current debate surrounding Aave DAO and @aave Labs, but some points: - For a complex system like the Aave DAO to work and move forward, there needs to be frameworks of full transparency and control.

Some of my thoughts on this: - The reality on the Uniswap case is -gymnastics-aside- very simple: there is a single organisation really maintaining/moving forward a project, which is completely legit and should not be penalised regulatory-wise, especially being an arguably very

Regarding the current topic of DeFi lending and risk of "curators", it is really very simple: if you design a system with fully permissionless/no-skin-in-the-game collateral listings, you can be 100% sure it will be misused. Basically, as a protocol/platform allowing those

Friday could have one of DeFi's worst black swan events. On paper, over $19 billion in liquidations hit across CEXs and perp DEXs. The real figure was likely higher. Many were surprised that on-chain lending markets came out mostly untouched, but outcomes can be misleading.

In days like these, it's a good time to study why we put focus on the Aave DAO on Umbrella and Aave <> @chainlink SVR, and what happens when they are strategically aligned. Aside from the DAO continuously taking very difficult (and frequently controversial) pricing decisions

Particularly proud of this one, with all Aave systems (protocol, safety module Umbrella, governance, bridging, tooling, etc) reaching very optimal maturity levels

Always a pleasure to talk with @jack__sanford, this time on @sherlockdefi Web3 security podcast

With Aave v3 more than 3 years in production, countless improvements done & ongoing, and v4 approaching its latest stage of development, we have published our vision regarding the Aave v3.X product going forward, and its relation with v4. Link and a summary below ⬇️

Aave Umbrella facts. Staking on Umbrella aTokens is a very yield market-aware. If staking for example aUSDT, you will get a yield component from Umbrella on a relatively limited range (e.g., optimised to ~3.50% at the defined target of $104m) plus the underlying rate on Aave.

Aave Umbrella facts. Umbrella has two slashing phases: the slashing itself, and the deficit coverage on the Pool. Slashing is automated and occurs immediately after deficit is accrued on any asset covered by the Umbrella in the connected Aave; first reducing the deficit offset