👻Aave: Add agEUR on Aave V3 on Polygon
Voting Recommendation by (Discord: Raho#0007) - Summary by (Discord: rathermercurial#2096)
Summary:
https://governance.aave.com/t/listing-proposal-add-ageur-on-aave-v3-on-polygon/7325
Open Questions:
Feedback:
The latest Aave proposal to add agEUR on Polygon is a total mess, posted on a Sunday during ETH Denver, with a 3-day turnaround.. It seems clear that this was a maneuver to push a low-quality proposal through while Aave voters are busy elsewhere, as the language is very low-quality and somewhat dubious (at best). Given the occasionally low quality of Aave asset listing proposals recently, how would the @Metagovernance Pod feel about creating a minimum benchmark for such proposals to be considered by the pod? ..(at least until Aave creates an official governance standard of its own, similar to the recently-adopted standard for "new chain" proposals). This would reduce the workload considerably (and perhaps lessen/prevent voter apathy) in cases where there is an influx of low-quality proposals. If that sounds like a good idea, I'll draft a benchmark based on Aave's recent multi-chain proposal standard, and forward to the protocol lead, @raho, for consideration.
I agree Aave needs a scalable way to approve assets, particularly if there are going to be independent votes for different assets on different chains. I think we could potentially create an internal conditional framework around new collateral onboarding; e.g., if the proposal introduces a new collateral type, and there are upgradable contracts via a multi sig, we vote no without the need for a full RH metagov process. Not saying that’s the right rule set, but the general idea of the pod approving some sort of rubric that lays out all of the standard criteria and removes some of the ongoing process.
Execution status: Abstained
Vote:
Community Vote
Y
N
Pod Vote
Y
N
Last updated