PROPOSED: IIP-107: Delegate Aave votes for LM Extension Proposal

Title: Delegate Aave votes for LM Extension Proposal
Status: Proposed
Date: 15 November 2021
Authors: @ncitron and @Matthew_Graham
Discussion to: PROPOSED: IIP-107: Delegate Aave votes for LM Extension Proposal
Quorum: 109,069 [0.05*2,181,385]

Simple Summary

Use the DPI’s AAVE votes to submit a proposal that extends the Aave liquidity mining incentives for 90 days and updates the distribution of rewards.


Aave’s current liquidity mining program is due to expire on November 22nd. This IIP proposes that we use the DPI’s AAVE votes to submit @Matthew_Graham’s proposal to renew the liquidity mining program with new parameters. The full body of the proposal can be viewed here. The Aave proposal payloads are being prepared by @ncitron with code review from the Aave team.


Metagovernance has been an integral part of the Index Coop since inception. While we have in the past submitted proposals for our own needs (listing DPI on Aave), or from outside parties (Flipside Uniswap proposal), we have yet to use metagovernance power simply to act as good custodians of DeFi protocols. This proposal presents the opportunity for us to support the Aave ecosystem and take a more active role in governance.


If this proposal passes, DPI’s AAVE power will be temporarily delegated to the EWG deployer account, 0x37e6365d4f6aE378467b0e24c9065Ce5f06D70bF. After the proposal is submitted, we will immediately vote yes for the proposal, as has been the case in prior metagovernance proposals.



  • Delegate AAVE votes to 0x37e6365d4f6aE378467b0e24c9065Ce5f06D70bF.
  • Submit AIP to extend Aave liquidity mining.
  • Vote yes on the proposal once submitted.
  • Return delegation to MGC multisig once the proposal process has been completed.


  • Do nothing.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


@mel.eth can we assign this an IIP number and get this vote scheduled to begin tomorrow?


Hi @mel.eth

To help out here, we have a snapshot going live on Aave soon, I setup the snapshot just now.

@ncitron and I intend to submit the AIP early next week as the current stkAAVE LM incentives are due to finish on the 22nd November.

Details on the proposed LM incentives can be found below:

We will run the vote over the weekend and will coordinate the votes to get this across the line.


@Matthew_Graham IIP-107 has been assigned and this vote will be scheduled as soon as possible; timeline forthcoming.

cc: @sixtykeys


@Matthew_Graham @ncitron

This IIP has been posted to snapshot with voting to commence on 18 Nov 2021 at 17:43 UTC and run for 72 hours.

Please vote here.

Of note, there was an approximate ~9 hour delay between the combined call for IIP No. assignment and vote, and subsequent acknowledgment by myself as GovRep; I have made a judgement call here to start the vote 48-hours from the call for a vote as opposed to 48-hours from acknowledgement, number assignment, and change of status to PROPOSED. The relevant guidance can be found here. Given I may setting some precedent, I felt it prudent to highlight. Going forward, proposers please be sure to tag all IIP Editors when calling for IIP Number assignment for visibility and GOWG will be looking to set up a dedicated account (similar to F.Nest) for this purpose to make the tagging process simpler.

cc: @sixtykeys

1 Like

The timeline for making this proposal on Aave had been moved up, so we had to find another delegate to supply the proposal power. Because of this, we are withdrawing this IIP.

Thanks for the support.

cc: @mel.eth @sixtykeys


Acknowledged @ncitron.

The queued snapshot vote has been removed (thank you for the assist @sixtykeys ) and this IIP will be noted as canceled. Thank you for the update.

cc: @sixtykeys @Matthew_Graham

1 Like

Apologies for the inconvenience to all involved. The great news is we got the AIP up earlier than we were otherwise able to do so and we are edging closer towards making DPI a productive asset on Aave V2.

Thank you for all the help GOWG team. And again apologies for any inconvenience.


In the spirit of working together on a journey never-ending growth and improvement [Guiding Principles], it appears there is some room for improvement! :muscle:

It seems that the IIP process is not clear enough and that lack of clarity is produced some confusion here.

The confusion I noticed is that this IIP did not follow our governance process. Specifically, the 48 hour waiting period was not observed, as required by IIP-26.

The primary intent of that waiting period is to allow sufficient time for the community to understand a given proposal, ask questions, provide feedback etc… For historical context, the Coop used to have a 7-day waiting period from “proposed” to vote.

My base assumption is that the process itself is not clear (i.e. how does a proposal go from “draft” to “proposed”? When does the 48 hour waiting period start?) and that additional clarity is needed to set everyone up for success.