My thoughts on the Polygon bridge funds investment proposal: 1. The Polygon team (with the help of their friends) created a proposal to take users' funds from the Polygon bridge and invest them into DeFi without sufficient risk protection. Behind closed doors, they selected the partners and some say secured a huge token deal. 2. After reading the proposal, Polygon users, rightly, were uncomfortable with their funds being double-spent, similar to fractional banking. 3. Aave service providers (including risk providers) learned about the proposal and given that 40% of Polygon’s TVL is deposited into Aave, Aave's primary governance function operates on Polygon, and the existing Safety Module insures the market on Polygon, this proposal had significant impact on Aave's risk management. 4. ACI took action to open a discussion around adjusting risk parameters to protect users' funds (considering the PTSD from the Harmony bridge hack). Other notable contributors, such as @AndreCronjeTech, voiced similar concerns in governance discussions. 5. The Polygon team abandoned the mission, quickly spun a narrative about not supporting the proposal, and blamed Aave's leadership for the failure of the proposal. They also made several inaccurate claims about Aave's infrastructure. Let’s clarify for accuracy: Aave's infrastructure supports custom markets (e.g., Lido has created one, and others have as well). Aave supports immutable governance if needed. Aave even enables the use of your own token for governance under its friendly fork policy. If Polygon wanted more control over the investment strategy for the bridged assets, a tailored market could have been spawned easily, with the additional guarantees of a large and efficient Safety Module, that no other protocol has. Aave is the most flexible lending infrastructure and capital-efficient system, built to cater to diverse use cases. V4 will be an even more exciting product. The main feedback for Polygon was that Polygon users were unhappy about a network using their funds for high-risk investments without consent. The fact that Aave opened the discussion and took action to protect users is exactly what DAOs should do. Framing Aave DAO's proposal as anti-competitive behavior is inaccurate and diverts attention from the real issue: user security. Inheriting the risk of a third party protocol without the consent of the DAO is not something the Aave DAO is interested in and ACI took the steps required to define what's next for the Polygon market. In my 8 years of building DeFi, this has been top-tier entertainment. When it comes to Aave's leadership: we prioritize user safety above all else. Just use Aave.