Aave official estimates two versions of bad debt resolution: cross-chain socialization results in $124 million loss, while L2 isolation results in $230 million loss.

📄Full Article· Automatically extracted by trafilaturaGemini 翻譯1495 words

For the same bad debt, there are two treatment plans, with an estimated difference of nearly $100 million. Aave officially cited a LlamaRisk report, proposing two scenarios: "socializing the $124 million loss across all chains" and "isolating the $230 million loss on L2." With the DAO treasury currently holding $181 million in reserves, Scenario 2 would directly breach the bottom line. (Previous coverage: 2026's biggest DeFi incident: Kelp hacked for $292 million, Aave bad debt nears $200 million, rsETH backing collapses) (Background supplement: Aave TVL evaporates by $8 billion, falls out of DeFi leadership throne) On the 21st, Aave released the latest update on the rsETH incident on its governance forum, citing an assessment report from risk service provider LlamaRisk to formally propose two bad debt treatment plans. Placing the two figures side-by-side reveals a gap of nearly $100 million—this multiple-choice question will determine who bears the ultimate cost of the largest DeFi attack in 2026. The root of the incident dates back to April 18. The attacker exploited a vulnerability in Kelp's LayerZero V2 cross-chain bridge to mint 116,500 rsETH without corresponding burns, directly shaking the backing foundation of rsETH and triggering a chain reaction of collateral crises on Aave. The two scenarios listed in the LlamaRisk report are essentially a political question of risk allocation: should the loss be borne by everyone, or should it be limited to holders on specific chains? Scenario 1 advocates for "loss socialization," shared by all rsETH holders across all chains. The report estimates that rsETH will experience a de-peg of approximately 15%, resulting in about $124 million in bad debt for Aave. The logic of this plan is risk-sharing, but the cost is that even rsETH holders on the Ethereum mainnet must take the hit. Scenario 2 advocates for "L2 isolation," limiting the loss to rsETH on L2 chains while keeping rsETH on the Ethereum mainnet fully intact. It sounds "fairer," but once the numbers are crunched, the result is even uglier: cross-chain collateral is subject to a 73.54% haircut, causing the bad debt Aave is estimated to bear to soar to approximately $230.1 million, with the Mantle chain accounting for 71.45% of the gap and Arbitrum for 26.67%. The core logic of the socialization plan is to have all rsETH holders share the losses caused by the tokens minted out of thin air by the attacker in proportion. LlamaRisk estimates that rsETH will consequently experience a systemic de-peg of about 15%, ultimately leading to a loss of approximately $124 million for the Aave protocol. While this figure is massive, compared to Scenario 2, it remains the lesser of two evils. The question is whether rsETH holders on the Ethereum mainnet who have never operated near L2 cross-chain bridges are willing to pay for others' cross-chain risks. This political question is harder to solve than the technical one. The seemingly "precise" L2 isolation plan yields even more staggering numbers. The report shows that once a 73.54% haircut is applied to cross-chain collateral, Aave's gap on the two L2s will erupt: the Mantle chain would bear about 71.45% of the loss, and the Arbitrum chain would account for 26.67%. In total, the bad debt Aave would have to bear is estimated at approximately $230.1 million—nearly $100 million more than Scenario 1. Behind the numbers lies another point of tension: the Aave DAO protocol treasury currently has reserves of approximately $181 million. This means that if Scenario 2 is adopted, the DAO treasury would not only be fully depleted but would also face a shortfall of approximately $49 million, requiring external funding to fill. The $124 million loss in Scenario 1 can be partially absorbed by the treasury; the $230 million in Scenario 2 would back the DAO into a corner. Aave stated that DAO service providers have been leading efforts with ecosystem participants to fill the bad debt, and have currently received several preliminary commitments from various parties. However, the specific commitment amounts and sources have not yet been publicly disclosed. The final choice between the two scenarios is expected to be decided through an Aave governance vote. Community members holding AAVE tokens will cast a critical vote in this allocation of over $200 million in costs.

Data Status✓ Full text extractedRead Original (動區 BlockTempo)

🔍Historical Similar Events· Keyword + Asset Matching6 items

2026-04-20

Aave TVL evaporates by $8 billion, losing its top DeFi spot: $5.1 billion in stablecoins stuck, Umbrella security model faces first stress test

Similarity 170%關鍵字 aave/億美元同分類 zh

2026-04-19

Kelp DAO suffers rsETH bridge hack! $292 million stolen, triggering chain reaction of freezes on Aave and Compound

Similarity 170%關鍵字 aave/億美元同分類 zh

2026-04-19

Kelp DAO rsETH bridge hacked for $292 million! Triggering chain reaction of freezes on Aave and Compound

Similarity 170%關鍵字 aave/億美元同分類 zh

2026-04-23