That TEMP CHECK proposal on the Aave governance forum: the direction was approved, but none of the parameters have been set. I checked the documents and the source code, and this combination alone is worth pausing to examine. The proposal is to move forward with the Babylon TBV integration into Aave v4. The discussion agreed on the direction, but the main text explicitly lists a bunch of pending items: specific parameter values aren’t determined yet; the risk parameters need to be filled in with an ARFC-stage assessment; and there are also questions about the boundaries of vaultBTC as a collateral asset. Follow the proposal’s approved parts and the pending parts in sequence—this document shows that the direction is agreed upon, while the details are still unsettled. It’s still a complete set of parameter analysis and a formal vote away from an executable deployment.
At one point, I thought that with a TEMP CHECK, it was basically ready to go live. But reading through the issue list one by one and then looking back made it clear: in governance documents, the portion devoted to pending issues reflects the true progress more than the portion devoted to what was agreed. Agreement on the direction only means the community believes it’s worth continuing to discuss; it doesn’t mean the technical and parameter-related risks have already been resolved. Debate points in the parameter-analysis stage—such as what LTV to set and how much room to leave for the liquidation threshold—are publicly verifiable in the governance forum’s discussion records. The right way to read it isn’t to ask whether there’s a TEMP CHECK. Instead, you should check which step it reached among the TEMP CHECK, ARFC, and AIP 3 stages, and whether the questions at each step have been answered. @BabylonLabs_io
So, if you want to evaluate a DeFi project’s readiness to connect to the mainnet, first look at the issue list in the governance proposal, and count how many questions remain unanswered—more reliable than judging from the headline of a press release. In plain terms: the TBV integration at governance has passed the first direction gate; there are still 2 more gates ahead. In the project’s progress narrative, the proposal stage and the deployment stage are often discussed together. You should look at them separately to avoid misjudging. Debate points in the parameter-analysis stage—such as what LTV to set and how much room to leave for the liquidation threshold—are publicly verifiable in the governance forum’s discussion records.
Approving the direction and landing the details are two different things—this rule holds especially true in DeFi. The proposal has only passed the first direction gate; you have to go back and count how many items are still pending. #baby $BABY
At one point, I thought that with a TEMP CHECK, it was basically ready to go live. But reading through the issue list one by one and then looking back made it clear: in governance documents, the portion devoted to pending issues reflects the true progress more than the portion devoted to what was agreed. Agreement on the direction only means the community believes it’s worth continuing to discuss; it doesn’t mean the technical and parameter-related risks have already been resolved. Debate points in the parameter-analysis stage—such as what LTV to set and how much room to leave for the liquidation threshold—are publicly verifiable in the governance forum’s discussion records. The right way to read it isn’t to ask whether there’s a TEMP CHECK. Instead, you should check which step it reached among the TEMP CHECK, ARFC, and AIP 3 stages, and whether the questions at each step have been answered. @BabylonLabs_io
So, if you want to evaluate a DeFi project’s readiness to connect to the mainnet, first look at the issue list in the governance proposal, and count how many questions remain unanswered—more reliable than judging from the headline of a press release. In plain terms: the TBV integration at governance has passed the first direction gate; there are still 2 more gates ahead. In the project’s progress narrative, the proposal stage and the deployment stage are often discussed together. You should look at them separately to avoid misjudging. Debate points in the parameter-analysis stage—such as what LTV to set and how much room to leave for the liquidation threshold—are publicly verifiable in the governance forum’s discussion records.
Approving the direction and landing the details are two different things—this rule holds especially true in DeFi. The proposal has only passed the first direction gate; you have to go back and count how many items are still pending. #baby $BABY