The discussion revolves around a new proposal by MatthewGraham titled "Round 5 Liquidity Mining Aave v2 Ethereum Market"¹. The proposal aims to reinitiate stkAAVE incentives on the Aave v2 Ethereum market for a 90-day period, with rewards provided to users who borrow selected stablecoins and lend selected assets. The proposal also suggests a 20% reduction in stkAAVE distribution from the previous proposal, AIP-60, aligning the distribution more closely with revenue generation¹.

The broader objectives of the proposal include growing Total Value Locked (TLV), increasing liquidity, offering attractive borrow rates, increasing the protocol income via growing the Reserve Factor, and redistributing governance power towards users of the platform¹. However, the proposal has sparked a debate among community members. Pakim249 questioned the wisdom of the proposal, suggesting that other AAVE markets are mature enough to receive LM rewards and that Ethereum is not the best transaction layer due to its high costs². PaulFrambot asked for clarification on why the LM is proposed to last for a 90-day period³.

MarcZeller argued that while liquidity mining has been a powerful tool for Aave's growth, it can also be seen as a costly subsidy program. He pointed out that the future of Aave is V3, not V2, and suggested that a subsidy program for an obsolete version of the protocol doesn't seem fit⁴. He proposed to pause the LM program to slow down the depletion of the Ecosystem Reserve⁴. Other community members like Fig and Eboado also expressed their reservations about the proposal, suggesting that there is no immediate need to restart the liquidity mining program and that it's a good time to reconsider the direction of AAVE governance power distribution^5,6.

In conclusion, while the proposal by MatthewGraham aims to incentivize borrowing of stablecoins and increase the amount of ETH deposits, it has sparked a debate among community members about the efficacy and direction of the liquidity mining program. The discussion suggests a need for further deliberation and possibly a reevaluation of the AAVE governance power distribution.