# AAVE İlgili Makaleler

HTX Haber Merkezi, kripto endüstrisindeki piyasa trendleri, proje güncellemeleri, teknoloji gelişmeleri ve düzenleyici politikaları kapsayan "AAVE" hakkında en son makaleleri ve derinlemesine analizleri sunmaktadır.

Kelp DAO Hack: Aave DAO Proposes To Contribute 25,000 ETH To Recovery Efforts

Aave DAO has proposed contributing 25,000 ETH from its treasury to a coordinated recovery effort following a major exploit on Kelp DAO. The attack, which occurred on April 18, targeted Kelp's rsETH Ethereum LayerZero adapter, resulting in a loss of approximately 163,183 ETH. Through frozen assets, recovered funds, and expected liquidations, over half the deficit has been covered, but a gap of roughly 75,081 ETH remains. A coalition named "DeFi United," including pledges from EtherFi, Lido, Ethena, and a credit line from Mantle, is mobilizing to restore the system. Aave's anchored contribution is a key part of this effort to reintroduce liquidity and fully back the affected tokens.

bitcoinist04/25 15:02

Kelp DAO Hack: Aave DAO Proposes To Contribute 25,000 ETH To Recovery Efforts

bitcoinist04/25 15:02

Aave Leads Effort to Fill 68.9k ETH Gap, DeFi Undergoes System-Level Stress Test

Aave has initiated a "DeFi United" rescue plan alongside multiple institutions to address a $292 million loss caused by a vulnerability in KelpDAO’s integration with LayerZero. The exploit allowed a hacker to mint unbacked rsETH and use it as collateral to borrow approximately $190 million on Aave, triggering a bank run and evaporating nearly $100 billion in TVL. While about 30,700 ETH was frozen on Arbitrum, a deficit of 68,900 ETH remains. To stabilize the system, several entities—including Lido Finance, EtherFi, Aave founder Stani Kulechov, and Mantle—have pledged support totaling around 43,500 ETH so far. However, the shortfall persists, and the incident has escalated from a technical exploit to a systemic trust crisis. The event tests DeFi’s ability to self-correct without central authority or a lender of last resort. The success or failure of this collaborative rescue effort may reshape confidence in decentralized finance and influence whether cross-protocol risk-sharing can become a sustainable mechanism for future crises.

marsbit04/25 00:00

Aave Leads Effort to Fill 68.9k ETH Gap, DeFi Undergoes System-Level Stress Test

marsbit04/25 00:00

Day 6 of the rsETH Incident: DeFi United Secures Approximately $100 Million in Intentional Commitments, but a $50 Million Gap Remains

On April 18, Kelp DAO’s rsETH LayerZero bridge was exploited, resulting in the unauthorized minting of 116.5k rsETH (approx. $292M). The attacker borrowed around $190M on Aave V3. The Arbitrum Security Council froze 30,766 ETH linked to the incident. DeFi United, a cross-protocol rescue initiative led by Awe, was formed to cover a total shortfall of 112.2k rsETH ($258M). As of April 24, several protocols have pledged around $100M in support, though most commitments are still under DAO voting or discussion. Key pledges include: - Golem: 1,000 ETH ($2.3M) - Aave founder Stani Kulechov: 5,000 ETH ($11.5M) - EtherFi: up to 5,000 ETH ($11.5M) - Lido: up to 2,500 stETH ($5.75M), contingent on full coverage - Mantle: proposed a $69M loan to Aave DAO under specific terms The remaining shortfall is estimated at $50M. Aave’s treasury and safety module (~$236M combined) can cover the worst-case bad debt scenario ($230M). Three potential loss distribution paths were outlined by DefiLlama’s 0xngmi: 1. Uniform 18.5% haircut for all rsETH holders: Aave bad debt ~$216M 2. Only protect Mainnet, abandon L2: bad debt up to $341M 3. Repay only pre-attack holders: technically difficult, ~$91M net loss KelpDAO has not yet announced a specific plan. The success of DeFi United depends heavily on KelpDAO’s final decision on loss allocation.

marsbit04/24 11:26

Day 6 of the rsETH Incident: DeFi United Secures Approximately $100 Million in Intentional Commitments, but a $50 Million Gap Remains

marsbit04/24 11:26

Aave Is Surrendering the Throne of DeFi Lending Due to Its Own Stupidity

An article titled "Aave Is Giving Up Its Throne in DeFi Lending Due to Its Own Foolishness" discusses how Aave mishandled a crisis following a $292 million hack of rsETH from Kelp DAO, leading to significant outflows and reputational damage. After the hack, Aave failed to promptly reassure users or commit to covering potential bad debt—estimated between $123.7 million and $230.1 million—despite having sufficient reserves. This hesitation triggered panic, resulting in $17.2 billion in outflows and liquidity crises across multiple pools. The author argues that Aave’s poor crisis management and reluctance to act quickly exacerbated the situation, damaging its reputation as the "safest DeFi" platform. Meanwhile, competitor Spark, a fork of Aave V3, capitalized on the situation by attracting fleeing funds, growing its TVL by nearly $2 billion. Spark had previously delisted rsETH, avoiding any exposure to the hack. Its proactive communication and strategic positioning contrast sharply with Aave’s delayed response. Although Aave’s founder later announced a relief plan (DeFi United) with multiple partners and a personal donation, the damage to user trust and liquidity may be lasting. The article concludes that Aave’s missteps have allowed competitors like Spark, Morpho, and Jupiter Lend to challenge its dominant position in DeFi lending.

marsbit04/24 02:40

Aave Is Surrendering the Throne of DeFi Lending Due to Its Own Stupidity

marsbit04/24 02:40

Aave Is Surrendering the Throne of DeFi Lending Due to Its Own Stupidity

Aave, a leading DeFi lending protocol, is facing a severe crisis and losing its dominant market position due to its poor handling of a recent security incident. The crisis began when Kelp DAO suffered a hack resulting in a loss of $292 million in rsETH. In the aftermath, approximately $17.2 billion in funds flowed out of Aave as user panic escalated. The article criticizes Aave's crisis management as "extremely foolish." Instead of promptly offering reassurance or committing to cover the potential bad debt—estimated between $123.7 million and $230.1 million, which Aave could have afforded—the protocol initially deflected blame, emphasizing that its code was not at fault. This delay and lack of a clear guarantee led to widespread user anxiety, triggering a bank run-like scenario where users withdrew funds or borrowed aggressively from other pools, causing liquidity shortages. Meanwhile, Aave’s competitor Spark—a fork of Aave’s own code—has benefited significantly. Having removed support for rsETH months earlier, Spark avoided any losses from the incident and has since seen its TVL grow by nearly $2 billion, attracting major deposits such as over $1.24 billion from Justin Sun. Spark has actively capitalized on the situation, publicly criticizing Aave’s security reputation. Although Aave’s founder Stani eventually announced a relief plan named "DeFi United" with several partners and a personal donation, the damage to user trust and capital outflows may be irreversible. The article concludes that Aave is losing its throne in DeFi lending to aggressive competitors like Spark, Morpho, and Jupiter Lend.

Odaily星球日报04/24 02:38

Aave Is Surrendering the Throne of DeFi Lending Due to Its Own Stupidity

Odaily星球日报04/24 02:38

After AAVE Was Hit, What Did Spark Do Right to Attract $1.3 Billion Against the Trend?

Amid a $15.1 billion liquidity crisis at Aave triggered by a cross-chain vulnerability involving rsETH, which led to $200 million in bad debt, Spark Protocol emerged as a safe haven, attracting $1.3 billion in inflows. Spark’s TVL surged to $4.74 billion, with ETH deposit rates spiking to 130% due to high demand and scarce liquidity. Spark’s resilience stemmed from its conservative governance and multi-layered risk framework. Unlike Aave, which aggressively listed rsETH to boost capital efficiency, Spark had proactively delisted the asset months earlier, avoiding exposure. The protocol employs strict rate-limited caps, higher interest rate buffers, and a modular isolation architecture to mitigate risks. These measures prevent over-concentration, ensure liquidity during stress, and attract arbitrage capital during high utilization. The shift from Aave to Spark signals a market preference for security over yield, underscoring the importance of disciplined risk management in DeFi.

marsbit04/22 11:51

After AAVE Was Hit, What Did Spark Do Right to Attract $1.3 Billion Against the Trend?

marsbit04/22 11:51

IOSG Founder: The Most Dangerous Prisoner's Dilemma in DeFi History

IOSG Founder: DeFi's Most Dangerous Prisoner's Dilemma A $230M bad debt remains unresolved, with Aave Collector holding over $200M in liquid assets and LayerZero recently raising $120M—both fully capable of covering the losses. Aave has lost $8.45B in TVL in under two days, while the entire DeFi ecosystem has bled $13.2B. The silence from all parties involved is exacerbating the crisis. The author recalls the DeFi spirit of 2020, when MakerDAO faced collapse during the March 12 crash but took responsibility by auctioning MKR to cover bad debt. Today, in contrast, there is only silence. Users are withdrawing funds not just from Aave but from Spark and other DeFi protocols, voting with their feet. This loss of trust threatens the entire ecosystem. This is not just Aave’s problem. Spark, MakerDAO, and all Ethereum DeFi protocols must coordinate. Trust, once broken, affects everyone. Time is critical—every hour of silence leads to more capital leaving permanently. The author urges Aave’s Stani Kulechov, Vitalik Buterin, AaveDAO, KelpDAO, LayerZero, and RuneKek to communicate publicly and reassure the market. Silence is the worst option.

marsbit04/22 04:07

IOSG Founder: The Most Dangerous Prisoner's Dilemma in DeFi History

marsbit04/22 04:07

LayerZero Breaks Silence On $290 Million KelpDAO Crypto Exploit

LayerZero has addressed the $290 million exploit affecting KelpDAO's rsETH, asserting it was not a protocol failure but a result of KelpDAO's decision to use a single-DVN (Decentralized Verifier Network) configuration. The company claims the attack was isolated to this specific setup and confirms no contagion risk to other assets or applications. Preliminary analysis suggests the attack was executed by a sophisticated state actor, likely North Korea's Lazarus Group. The method involved poisoning RPC infrastructure used by the LayerZero Labs DVN, swapping binaries on compromised nodes, and using DDoS attacks to force traffic to the malicious infrastructure. However, LayerZero states its least-privilege principles prevented a direct compromise. The exploit was only possible due to KelpDAO's 1-of-1 verifier setup, which contradicts LayerZero's recommended multi-DVN redundancy model. A properly configured system with multiple independent DVNs would have prevented the attack. LayerZero has deprecated affected nodes, restored its DVN, and will no longer support 1/1 configurations. Aave has frozen rsETH and WETH reserves on its platforms as a precaution while confirming rsETH on Ethereum mainnet remains fully backed.

bitcoinist04/20 15:01

LayerZero Breaks Silence On $290 Million KelpDAO Crypto Exploit

bitcoinist04/20 15:01

The $290 Million Deficit: A Three-Way Game Between Aave, L0, and Kelp—Who Should Foot the Bill?

An incident involving the theft of 116,500 rsETH (worth approximately $290 million) from Kelp DAO’s cross-chain bridge contract has triggered a complex dispute over responsibility and compensation among Kelp DAO, LayerZero, and Aave. The attack occurred due to a compromised RPC provider used by LayerZero’s Decentralized Verifier Network (DVN). Since Kelp DAO’s bridge used a 1/1 DVN configuration—a single point of failure—the attacker successfully forged a cross-chain message, leading to the unauthorized release of rsETH tokens from the mainnet. These genuine tokens were then deposited into Aave and other lending platforms to borrow WETH, enabling the attacker to exit with the funds. Responsibility is attributed primarily to Kelp DAO for its risky 1/1 DVN setup. LayerZero bears secondary responsibility for permitting such a vulnerable configuration in its protocol layer. Aave also shares indirect blame for over-collateralizing rsETH and other Liquid Restaking Token (LRT) assets without adequate ongoing risk oversight. Kelp DAO lacks sufficient funds to cover the loss, shifting focus to the deeper-pocketed players: LayerZero, whose cross-chain ecosystem and reputation are at risk, and Aave, which faces massive bad loans and declining Total Value Locked (TVL). Aave has asserted that mainnet rsETH remains fully backed, implying it expects Kelp DAO to allow redemption of underlying ETH. This approach would preserve Aave’s mainnet positions but invalidate Layer2 rsETH, damaging LayerZero’s cross-chain credibility. Potential solutions include: - A universal 18.5% haircut on all rsETH holders, causing significant Aave bad debt. - Writing off Layer2 rsETH entirely, protecting Aave mainnet but harming LayerZero and Kelp DAO. - Negotiating a bounty with the hacker for partial fund return. - A joint bailout, possibly led by LayerZero’s ecosystem fund, given its long-term stake in the cross-chain ecosystem. The situation remains unresolved as the parties negotiate, but prolonged delay risks broader DeFi instability, including potential liquidity crises and loss of confidence in LRT and cross-chain infrastructures.

Odaily星球日报04/20 08:52

The $290 Million Deficit: A Three-Way Game Between Aave, L0, and Kelp—Who Should Foot the Bill?

Odaily星球日报04/20 08:52

On the Same Day Aave Introduced rsETH, Why Did Spark Choose to Exit?

On April 18, Kelp DAO's cross-chain bridge was exploited, resulting in the malicious minting of 116,500 unbacked rsETH. The attacker deposited these into Aave and borrowed WETH, creating a potential bad debt of approximately $195 million. Aave’s Guardian quickly froze the market, but the protocol’s insurance could only cover about 25% of the loss. In contrast, SparkLend, a lending protocol in the MakerDAO ecosystem, suffered no direct losses. This was not due to superior foresight but rather a preemptive governance decision. On January 29, Spark executed a governance action to discontinue new rsETH supply, citing low usage and high concentration from a single wallet. The same day, Aave expanded its rsETH market by enabling E-Mode with a 93% LTV to attract more deposits. Spark’s risk management framework is designed to remove assets with low usage or poor risk-adjusted returns, regardless of external security concerns. Aave’s decision was growth-oriented, aiming to boost WETH utilization and attract capital. Spark also employs additional safeguards: rate-limited supply and borrow caps that would have limited the scale of such an attack, and a robust oracle system using the median of three price feeds. These mechanisms systemically contain the maximum exposure to any single risk event, demonstrating a fundamentally different approach to risk than Aave’s growth-first model.

marsbit04/20 08:14

On the Same Day Aave Introduced rsETH, Why Did Spark Choose to Exit?

marsbit04/20 08:14

活动图片

Market Analysis