Reading time saved: 1 minutes
3 replies, 1913 views, 2 likes
The AAVE platform's decision to block addresses linked to sanctioned individuals sparked a debate about decentralization and regulatory compliance. Users expressed concerns about the lack of consultation and clarity, distinguishing between the decentralized AAVE protocol and its centralized front-end, and suggested self-hosting the front-end code to bypass centralized control.
The discussion primarily focused on the contentious issue of address blocking on the AAVE platform. The platform has been reportedly blocking addresses associated with sanctioned individuals or entities involved in terrorist financing. O_O raised concerns about this practice, arguing that the DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) was not consulted about this decision. They further emphasized that AAVE, being a decentralized platform, should prioritize its users over specific countries' regulations1.
AAVE-addict responded to these concerns by distinguishing between AAVE as a decentralized entity and its "canonical" front-end, which is centralized. They expressed that banning addresses from the front-end did not pose a problem, but they agreed with O_O's concerns about the platform's compliance2. Harry_Feldman echoed these sentiments, suggesting that users should pull the frontend code from GitHub and host the website locally to circumvent centralized control3.
In conclusion, O_O clarified their stance, stating that they would have preferred if AAVE had explicitly stated that the banned accounts were only restricted from using their front-end, not the entire AAVE protocol4. This discussion underscores the ongoing debate about the balance between decentralization and regulatory compliance in the crypto space.
Posted a year ago
Last reply a year ago
Summary updated 2 months ago
Last updated 03/12 14:23