Cancel Llama Streams
01Summary
Cancel existing Llama service provider streams from Aave DAO's Ecosystem Reserve and Collector contracts, and create two reduced 57-day replacement streams. This follows performance concerns including delayed CRV payload delivery (costing ~$1M), billing third parties for Aave consulting despite receiving $1.5M from DAO, and treasury management oversights that left service providers unpaid.
- Type
- treasury allocation
Key changes
- Cancel existing Llama streams from Ecosystem Reserve (Stream 100001) and Aave Collector (Stream 100003) contracts(high)
- Create two new reduced rate streams for 57 days to Llama address 0xb428C6812E53F843185986472bb7c1E25632e0f7(high)
- End Llama's engagement as service provider and deem them ineligible for future DAO contracts(high)
Notable concerns
- Llama delayed execution of CRV AIP resulting in approximately $1 million additional cost to DAO
- Llama billed third parties for consulting services related to Aave despite receiving $1.5 million from DAO
- Llama failed as treasury manager to maintain adequate aUSDC balance in collector contract, causing weeks of unpaid service providers and reputational damage to DAO
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
Simple Summary
This ARFC proposes to cancel the Llama streams from the Aave DAO and create reduced rate streams
Motivation
Llama has historically been a service provider for the Aave DAO and has made numerous contributions. However, during their tenure, there have been several instances where Llama’s performance has fallen short of expectations.
For instance:
Llama’s handling of the crucial CRV AIP was a clear demonstration of their inability to deliver a much-needed payload in a timely manner. The delay in execution resulted in an additional cost of approximately $1 million for the DAO due to the increased valuation of CRV. This incident underscores the need for service providers who can reliably deliver on their commitments and highlights Llama’s underqualification for the task at hand.
Despite receiving $1.5 million from the DAO, Llama charged third parties for consulting services related to Aave, including teams seeking asset listings.
As treasury managers, Llama failed to ensure that the collector contract had an adequate aUSDC balance. This oversight resulted in several service providers going unpaid for weeks, tarnishing the DAO’s brand and reputation.
Given these circumstances, we believe that the most beneficial course of action for the Aave DAO is to end our relationship with Llama. This will allow the DAO to reassess its needs and budget for a new service provider.
following snapshot vote decision, Llama will not be considered as a Service provider for the Aave DAO in the future and will finish its current engagement at a reduced stream
Specification
The AIP will call the cancelStream() method of the Ecosystem Reserve and Aave Collector contracts. once that is done, the AIP create two new reduced 57 Days streams. The details are as follows:
Ecosystem Reserve Contract: 0x25F2226B597E8F9514B3F68F00f494cF4f286491 Stream: 100001 Aave Collector Contract: 0x464C71f6c2F760DdA6093dCB91C24c39e5d6e18c Stream: 100003 Address: 0xb428C6812E53F843185986472bb7c1E25632e0f7
References
- Implementation: Payload
- Tests: Tests
- Snapshot
- ARFC Discussion
Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.
03Mismatch analysis
The proposal description details specific actions: canceling two Llama streams (on the Ecosystem Reserve and Aave Collector contracts) and creating two new reduced-rate 57-day streams to a specified address. The decoded on-chain calldata, however, contains only a single top-level action: a call to execute() on a payload contract address. This is the standard and expected pattern for Aave governance proposals, where the detailed logic (stream cancellations and creations) is encoded inside the payload contract's own code rather than being visible as separate top-level calldata actions. The proposal even links to the Solidity implementation file for this payload, which is consistent with this pattern. Because the decoded action list does not expose the internal calls made by the payload contract, I cannot directly verify that the specific stream IDs, contract addresses, or new stream terms described in the prose exactly match what the payload executes. This is not evidence of a mismatch — it is simply an information limitation inherent to how these proposals are decoded — so I am not flagging a discrepancy, but my confidence in a full verification is necessarily low. No value mismatches, target mismatches, or omissions can be identified from the single execute() call, and nothing in the visible calldata contradicts the description's claims.
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0x5ae3…2b6c
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- fallback()
- Arguments
{}- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
No votes recorded yet.
07Forum
No forum thread is confidently linked to this proposal.