A new governance temp check outlines a multichain strategy update for Aave V3 that prioritizes revenue efficiency, introduces stricter deployment thresholds, and addresses underperforming chains.
Summary
Refining Aave’s multichain footprint
The temp check, dated 19/11/2025, argues that Aave currently operates several V3 instances that each carry operational costs and expand the protocol’s risk surface. However, the proposal stresses that the revenue from some instances does not sufficiently offset those costs and risks.
According to the authors, previous multichain expansion has delivered mixed results. Therefore, the new plan seeks to concentrate on chains with the strongest revenue potential, while implementing remedial measures on deployments that are clearly underperforming. Moreover, the framework is designed to give the DAO clearer economic benchmarks when assessing future deployments.
TVL and revenue data across chains
The analysis references protocol data as of 11/11/2025, excluding Ethereum mainnet for figures labeled by chain. Figure 1 covers total value locked (TVL) by chain, while Figure 2 shows annualized revenue by chain based on rolling 30‑day revenue.
Table 1 summarizes how each chain contributes to Aave V3 TVL and revenue. Ethereum leads with a rolling 30‑day revenue of $11,693,762, annualized to $142,274,104, on TVL of $44,260 million, accounting for 81.10% of total TVL and 81.60% of total revenue.
Other major contributors include Plasma with $783,430 in 30‑day revenue and $9,531,732 annualized on $3,700 million TVL, and Base with $386,687 rolling 30‑day revenue and $4,704,692 annualized on $1,800 million TVL. Arbitrum posts $487,627 in rolling revenue, $5,932,795 annualized, and $1,870 million TVL.
Avalanche shows $296,886 rolling revenue, $3,612,113 annualized, and $1,050 million TVL. Linea records $249,104 in 30‑day revenue, $3,030,765 annualized, with $766 million TVL. Polygon has $235,421 rolling revenue, $2,864,289 annualized, and $315 million TVL.
On smaller instances, BNB Chain produces $60,121 in 30‑day revenue and $731,472 annualized on $373 million TVL. Optimism reports $44,914 rolling revenue, $546,454 annualized, and $179 million TVL, while Scroll shows $42,398, $515,842 annualized, and $23 million TVL.
Gnosis contributes $26,293 in rolling revenue, $319,898 annualized, and $123 million TVL. Sonic brings $16,619 in 30‑day revenue, $202,198 annualized, and $81 million TVL. Celo has $4,796 rolling revenue, $58,351 annualized, with $23 million TVL.
Soneium accounts for $4,269 in rolling 30‑day revenue, $51,940 annualized, and $4 million TVL. zkSync shows $1,682 in rolling revenue, $20,464 annualized, with $14 million TVL, and Metis generates $275 in 30‑day revenue, $3,346 annualized, on $8 million TVL. Total revenue across instances reaches $14,334,284 on a rolling 30‑day basis and $174,400,455 annualized, with $54,589 million combined TVL.
The data underline that several chains deliver only a marginal share of overall TVL and protocol revenue. That said, the proposal does not push for immediate offboarding of all low‑performing deployments, but instead introduces an intermediate revenue optimization step.
Reserve factor adjustment policy on weaker deployments
The temp check recommends increasing the Reserve Factor on instances that generate less than $3,000,000 in annualized revenue. This threshold currently affects Polygon, Gnosis, BNB Chain, Optimism, Scroll, Sonic, and Celo. Moreover, the document notes that detailed per‑asset changes will be specified later at the ARFC stage.
The suggested Reserve Factor floors by asset type are as follows: for stablecoins excluding USDC and USDT, a 25% floor; for WETH, a 20% floor; for USDC and USDT, a 15% floor; and for GHO, a 10% floor. These parameters aim to capture a larger share of protocol income on chains that currently contribute relatively little.
The proposal further states that, if no meaningful revenue improvement is seen within 12 months of implementing these changes, the DAO should consider starting offboarding procedures for the affected instances. However, that decision would follow standard governance, including fresh analysis and community input.
Shutdown of the three lowest‑revenue instances
Alongside the reserve factor adjustment policy, the temp check calls for a complete wind‑down of Aave V3 deployments on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium. These chains currently show annualized revenue of approximately $3,000–$50,000, placing them at the very bottom of the revenue table.
According to the authors, keeping these instances active demands additional engineering and operational work, especially for new asset onboardings. However, given current service provider bandwidth and the modest payoff on these chains, the temp check concludes that this effort is not justified. The planned shutdown is framed as a targeted measure rather than a broad retreat from scaling solutions.
Economic criteria for future deployments
The document also introduces a clearer framework for new deployments, effectively serving as a structured aave deployment cost analysis for the DAO. It acknowledges that deploying on a new chain can add meaningful value to that ecosystem, yet it also highlights the substantial upfront and recurring costs borne by Aave and its contributors.
To align incentives, the proposal suggests that any future Aave V3 deployment should come with a guaranteed revenue floor of $2,000,000 per year, backed by the target chain. Moreover, this two million revenue floor is intended to ensure that the protocol is fairly compensated for the liquidity, branding, and technical infrastructure it brings.
The temp check frames this threshold as a baseline rather than a cap. That said, it signals a more selective approach to new partnerships, favoring chains capable of supporting sustainable activity and meaningful fee generation from the outset.
Strategic focus on higher‑revenue chains
By pairing reserve factor increases on weak performers with the shutdown of the three lowest‑revenue instances, the multichain strategy update aims to redirect DAO resources toward higher‑yielding environments. This approach should also help the community focus discussions on where incremental liquidity and engineering work can have the most impact.
The authors argue that the measures will reduce low‑value deployments, ensure that Aave shares in the upside of successful chains, and decrease operational overhead. Moreover, the plan is presented as a way to improve the protocol’s risk‑adjusted returns by shrinking the surface area of small, underperforming deployments.
The proposal stresses that focusing on high‑revenue chains does not preclude experimentation. However, it implies that future experiments must be backed by clearer economic commitments from partner ecosystems.
Governance process and next steps
The temp check lays out a standard governance path for the community to evaluate these changes. First, there will be a public comment period to allow tokenholders, service providers, and ecosystem partners to review the details and share feedback.
After this discussion phase, a Temp Check Snapshot vote will be held. If that Snapshot outcome is YAE, the authors will publish a full ARFC, gather additional community and service provider input, and then escalate the proposal to the ARFC Snapshot stage for a more formal signal.
If the ARFC Snapshot also passes with a YAE result, the final step will be the publication of an AIP on‑chain vote. Moreover, that AIP will serve as the binding decision for enforcing the reserve factor changes, executing the shutdown of the three lowest‑revenue instances, and applying the new deployment revenue criteria.
Outlook for the protocol
Overall, the temp check presents a structured attempt to align multichain growth with clear revenue targets and risk management. If approved across all governance stages, the changes would likely streamline the protocol’s footprint, concentrate liquidity on stronger networks, and give partners clearer expectations around economic commitments.
Keyword principale: aave v3
