Aave Co-founder Responds to Polygon Bridge Fund Investment Proposal Controversy: It is not anti-competitive behavior.

Odaily News Report: Aave co-founder Stani released his views on the investment proposal for the Polygon bridge fund: 1. The Polygon team (with the help of partners) proposed a plan to withdraw user funds from the Polygon bridge and invest them in DeFi without adequate risk protection. They secretly selected partners and are said to have obtained a large amount of token transactions. 2. After reading the proposal, Polygon users are understandably dissatisfied with the dual use of their funds, similar to some banking practices. 3. Aave service providers (including risk providers) understood the proposal, and given that 40% of Polygon's TVL is deposited in Aave, Aave's main governance functions are running on Polygon, and the existing security modules provide insurance for the Polygon market, the proposal has a significant impact on Aave's risk management. 4. ACI took action to discuss adjusting risk parameters to protect user funds (considering the trauma from the Harmony bridge hack). Other prominent contributors, such as Andre Cronje, expressed similar concerns in the governance discussion. 5. The Polygon team abandoned their mission, quickly fabricated narratives that did not support the proposal, and blamed the failure of the proposal on Aave's leadership. They also made some inaccurate claims about Aave's infrastructure. To clarify: Aave's infrastructure supports custom markets (Lido has created one such market). If needed, Aave supports immutable governance. Aave even allows the use of your own tokens for governance under its friendly forking policy. If Polygon wants better control over the investment strategy of bridged assets, it can easily spawn a custom market and provide additional guarantees for large, efficient security modules, which other protocols do not have. Aave is a flexible lending infrastructure and capital efficiency system aimed at meeting different use cases. V4 will be an even more exciting product. Polygon's main feedback is that Polygon users are dissatisfied with the network using their funds for high-risk investments without their consent. The fact that Aave DAO opened discussions and took action to protect users is exactly what a DAO should do. Characterizing Aave DAO's proposal as anti-competitive is inaccurate and diverts attention from the real issue: user safety. Inheriting the risks of third-party protocols without DAO consent is not something Aave DAO is interested in, and ACI has taken the necessary steps to define the next steps for the Polygon market.