letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain
The aerodrome cabal is probably the most toxic and net negative force in this space
On one side you have efforts like DeFi United, where the whole space rallied to scramble together coverage for Aave's bad debt after the Kelp incident. A collective response to a collective problem.
On the other side you have Fluid, which made the honorable decision (with zero obligation to do so) to cover the ~$8m in bad debt that USDC and USDT depositors were exposed to from the Resolv incident. Alone. No external help. Putting users first.
And what does aerodrome do? Instead of building anything resembling a useful product beyond their ponzinomics, they spend their time and energy trying to insinuate wrongdoing and cast doubt on Fluid's solvency (knowing very well that for any lending protocol, FUD around solvency is the most dangerous thing).
From my read, and that is only what is public and what i can see onchain is that Fluid decided to cover the bad debt with their business treasury. Structurally identical to Aave using its treasury to cover the Kelp hack, with the one difference that Fluid is socering all the bad debt alone.
To execute, they replaced the bad debt with an unsecured credit line originally approved for another purpose. This did not worsen the position of any USDC or USDT depositor. It transitioned the system from a state of bad debt to a state of solvency backed by an unsecured loan against Fluid itself.
To suggest USDC and USDT depositors were put at harm through this step is braind dead. They transitioned from a state of bad debt of 8 m to being creditors to an 8m credit line to Fluid, which in the worst case (Fluid not paying it down) would place them in the original situation to begin with, a situation of 8m in bad debt.
Obviously Fluid only did this because it is clear from their on chain treasury and the strength of their business that they can and will pay down that credit this week.
Was it necessary to do it this way?
Yes it seems clear they had to settle with Resolv quickly, and unwinding treasury positions in that timeframe wasn't feasible.
Should they have communicated the intermediate step better?
Probably, to prevent any confusion.
In any case, instead of celebrating Fluid for choosing to cover its users (something vault curators on Morpho have not done) the aerodrome cabal desperately tries to spin it into a scandal.
From where I sit, Fluid has consistently put its users first. This was the first instance of bad debt on Fluid lending market, but they also covered all losses in the Lite ETH vault that came from market conditions creating negative carry. Again, no obligation. Spiking ETH borrow rates are a known risk every staked ETH looper accepts in exchange for the elevated yield in normal regimes.
Two different cultures. One builds, absorbs losses, protects depositors. The other tweets.
