teddit

wait so the “FC is too centralized”  team also happens to be the “bridges can only deposit assets on our protocol, not another” team which is also the “we’ll sponsor you, but you can’t build on WC” team that is also the “we have our own wallet, lending, stablecoin and social network” team? no? yes?

/ted | exploring the onchain frontier | surfing @ venice, ca | eating @ gjusta / gjelina

It's a little deeper than that. Aave's take on the Polygon proposal makes a lot of sense from a risk management perspective. 

Simply put, you can't use deposits without holders' consent (they haven't signed up for that), and by using your bridge assets, you expose a lot of protocols to bad debt if anything happens (cf Harmony bridge hack).

agree it is nuanced and that the proposal could put user funds at risk.  aave team is known to be excellent and successfully built a defi giant.

this is just a shit post about their anti-competition reputation, which unfortunately precedes them.

Mossad's #1 Guy. Suborbital Pillars of God: Online. Capacity: One for Jesse, One for-

I will not let my friends down. I will stay. I will help them fight this.

I have no context on this one TBH, so can't comment on it.

appreciate the balanced take. I get the technical/financial risk management but what's the deal with them saying "we'll sponsor you unless you build on WC?"