This is an archive of our post on Aave governance forum. Read the full thread here.

LlamaRisk thanks @ACI for putting together a straightforward, simple skeleton for the lifecycle of a proposal. This update to the existing framework, once implemented, will streamline processes and enhance collaboration among all involved parties.

In general, this presents a clear outline for governors to follow. The quorum requirements are suitably large, and the addendum process should enhance efficiency. It’s helpful to see the latest iteration of these processes codified in one area.

We want to make two risk-specific suggestions nonetheless:

1. ARFC Risk Provider required replies
   While this process is generally followed, we’d like to see the requirement for at least one risk provider recommendation formally included in the framework. This ensures that proposed changes are analyzed for potential impacts on existing protocol operations before an ARFC moves to a vote.

2. ARFC length to at least 5 days
   Comprehensive risk assessment requires extensive research on both quantitative and qualitative aspects. This research must be conducted, refined, and presented clearly to inform Aave DAO. Sometimes, more than 5 days are required to complete this process, especially when the ARFC period overlaps with weekends. Risk analysis often requires third-party input, which can lengthen the process, potentially compromising quality if rushed. We will strive to inform the DAO when more time is needed to complete our examination.

We thank you again for this initiative and the opportunity to voice our input.