On April 21, East 8 District Time, Aave lifted the freeze on WETH in the Ethereum Core V3 market, allowing users to supply WETH again. This action was supposed to be interpreted as a technical adjustment to enhance liquidity and market efficiency, but almost concurrently, Spark strategy leader MonetSupply publicly fired shots, quickly shifting the controversy from “Should it be unfrozen?” to “Who benefits from the unfreezing?” In their view, the real beneficiaries are not ordinary users, but high-risk players skilled at executing LST/LRT leverage cycles.

The rapid escalation of the controversy stems from several groups of sensitive numbers that have already been disclosed: weETH currently has about a 0.5% market discount, the ETH borrowing rate ceiling in Aave's Ethereum Core market is 5.15%, and under these arbitrage conditions, related cyclical strategies can theoretically be pushed to around 14 times leverage, creating approximately 45% profit potential. Thus, unfreezing WETH has become more than just a parameter action; it resembles a re-opened leverage valve.

One-Click Unfreeze on Aave: Efficiency Wins a Step

On the surface, Aave's action is quite straightforward: The WETH supply entry has been reopened. Supporters would interpret it as a fix leaning towards efficiency, as the lifting of the freeze restores at least the basic channels for collateral, lending, and liquidity circulation in the market. For a lending protocol known for its on-chain capital efficiency, re-opening the supply authority of core assets carries the implication of “returning the market to normal operation.”

However, the controversy begins here. MonetSupply's questioning is not about the act of “unfreezing” itself, but where this new liquidity actually flows. If the released space is primarily quickly occupied by a few highly leveraged cyclical strategies, the so-called improvement in efficiency may merely mean funds are concentrated more quickly in the hands of the highest risk-tolerant accounts, while broader lenders bear the subsequent liquidity pressure.

Surrounding the governance process, the market raised another layer of doubt: reports indicate that this operation may have been executed by Guardian in pursuit of speed, possibly bypassing standard governance procedures. It is important to emphasize that this procedural detail is currently only sourced from a single entity and remains unverified information. Until Aave or Guardian provides a formal explanation, it can only be viewed as a background for controversy and cannot be written as an established governance fact.

14 Times Leverage Unleashed: Whales Rush In First

MonetSupply's core accusation is clear: under the current interest rate model, the actual effect of unfreezing WETH is to reopen the gateway for weETH and other LST/LRT cyclical strategies. The on-chain gameplay is not complicated—first deposit weETH into the protocol as collateral, then borrow WETH, and convert the borrowed WETH into more weETH to continue depositing; doing this repeatedly allows the position to be magnified layer by layer. Because the path is clear, once market conditions are favorable, the first to rush in are often not ordinary users but large players highly sensitive to funding costs and leverage efficiency.

The attractiveness of this strategy comes from the combination of two disclosed sets of data. The first is the 0.5% market discount on weETH, and the second is the Aave Ethereum Core market ETH borrowing rate ceiling of 5.15%. According to MonetSupply's calculations, under these conditions, the related cyclical positions could theoretically be amplified to about 14 times leverage, boosting theoretical profits to about 45%. This does not mean everyone can consistently achieve this return, but it suffices to explain why this unfreezing is seen as a targeted release for high-leverage strategies.

When the discussion reaches this point, the question is no longer merely about parameter optimization, but whether the protocol inadvertently favors whale arbitrage. For large funds, the 0.5% discount and the 5.15% financing cost, when amplified through leverage, become more than mere marginal gains but could become strategies worth large-scale deployment. Hence, Aave's action is quickly transitioning from a governance act to a public conflict centered around profit distribution.

Ordinary Users Fear Not Volatility but Being Trapped

MonetSupply further directed the spotlight on the liquidity consequences. In their logic, as more cyclical funds flow in, it will continually heighten the borrowing demand for the aEthWETH liquidity pool, causing the pool to remain in a state of high utilization for an extended period. High-leverage players chase interest spread and amplified profits, while ordinary lenders focus on the simplest issue: Can they smoothly withdraw their assets when they need to exit?

This also represents the part of the controversy that hurts ordinary users the most. For lenders, the most realistic risk may not be short-term fluctuations on the books, but the deterioration of the withdrawal experience. As available liquidity is continuously eaten up by leveraged positions, the remaining withdrawable capacity in the pool narrows, and users may find that when they want to exit the most, the speed of exit is no longer determined by them.

It is essential to strictly distinguish between increased risk of high utilization and utilization having reached extreme values. Research briefs have clearly indicated that the claim of aEthWETH utilization reaching 100% cannot be fabricated. Therefore, the only confirmable risk here is directional: unfreezing WETH may attract more cyclical strategies to enter, thereby raising the pool's utilization rate, and increasing the chances of ordinary users being "trapped"; but the most extreme scenarios currently lack publicly verifiable data support.

Spark Fires Back: Governance Cracks Are Widening

Raising the perspective from a single market action, the real issue touched by this controversy is the risk externalities in DeFi governance. Is a decision designed to improve speed and liquidity acceptable if it shifts potential pressure onto a broader base of ordinary users? Aave's unfreezing may appear as merely a loosening on the parameter level, yet it has already encountered a sharper boundary: profits may be concentrated in the hands of a few high-leverage strategies while liquidity costs may be dispersed across the majority.

On an institutional level, this is also a longstanding issue between rapid permissions and governance transparency. If mechanisms like Guardian are used to enhance response speed, to what extent can they operate with advance actions and provide explanations afterwards? This will become a focal point of ongoing market inquiry. On an ideological level, there is a conflict between efficiency and user protection: on-chain protocols clearly need liquidity, but if liquidity ultimately only serves a few people's leveraged cycles, the narrative of the protocol being “open” will seem less neutral.

There are indeed dissenting voices in the market, arguing that unfreezing WETH itself is a positive signal, at least indicating that risks are within a controllable range. However, this judgment currently belongs to a subjective view from a single source, and the Aave official or Guardian has still not provided a confirmed official response or risk assessment report. Another common narrative that should be avoided is interpreting MonetSupply's statements directly as a competitive action between Spark and Aave. This inferred motivation is unverified and cannot be treated as fact, nor can it replace discussions about the risks themselves.

After the Unfreeze: The Market Awaits Official Clarification

What will determine the direction of this controversy moving forward will not be a verbal battle on social media, but several hard pieces of information that are still absent: The specific LTV parameters after WETH’s unfreeze, the current exact utilization rate of aEthWETH, and Aave's official explanation of risk spillover. Without these core data points, the market will find it challenging to judge whether this unfreezing is actually restoring liquidity or providing fuel for a new round of high-leverage cycles.

If the protocol ultimately cannot demonstrate that the new liquidity will prioritize improving the user experience for the majority rather than continuing to feed a few high-risk strategies, then this unfreezing will be difficult to simply categorize as a positive. On the contrary, it will be seen as a typical governance test: when “efficiency” and “safety” collide, which side does the protocol ultimately stand on.

The aftermath of this storm leaves challenging questions for DeFi governance. Guardian type rapid permissions—do they save the protocol in critical moments, or do they lay the groundwork for risks when information is insufficient? The answer cannot depend solely on supporters or critics speaking on their own. What the market is truly waiting for now is for the official clarification of numbers, boundaries, and responsibilities.

Join our community, let’s discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram Community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance Benefits Group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。