Aave's own governance, not just an external hack, turned a $292 million bridge exploit into a $200 million bad debt crisis by raising rsETH's loan-to-value to 93%. This decision, compressing the safety buffer, amplified the damage and left the protocol holding the bag. Does this expose a critical flaw in how "battle-tested" DeFi protocols manage risk, or was it an unavoidable consequence?
This summary was generated by AI
1