Chaos Labs has parted ways with Aave after three years of serving as the crypto lending protocol’s primary risk service provider, citing a budget dispute and fundamental disagreements over how risk should be managed. The rupture signals a notable inflection point in DeFi risk governance as Aave advances its V4 migration and navigates ongoing governance tensions within its ecosystem.

Chaos founder Omer Goldberg announced the decision on X, stressing that the move was deliberate and not made in haste. He said Aave Labs was willing to raise its budget to $5 million, but that the engagement “no longer reflected how we believe risk should be managed.” Aave Labs CEO Stani Kulechov offered a different framing, describing Chaos’s departure as the result of a push by Chaos to become the sole risk provider and to replace other partner models. Aave’s stance, the two sides said, remains professional; Chaos did not depart on acrimony, but the parties simply could not reconcile their risk-management philosophies.

Key takeaways

• Chaos Labs exits after a three-year engagement as Aave’s main risk service provider, citing a budget dispute and diverging views on risk management.
• The split underscores tensions between a single-provider model and a two-layer risk framework that Aave maintains, with Chaos allegedly seeking to replace Chainlink’s oracles and other partners.
• Aave assures that the departure has not disrupted its protocol, smart contracts, or listings, while signaling it will continue working with LlamaRisk during the transition.
• The move comes amid broader governance frictions within Aave Labs over funding and revenue control, and just weeks after a notable risk incident fueled calls for stronger safeguards.

What triggered Chaos Labs’ departure from Aave

Chaos Labs has been a cornerstone of Aave’s risk infrastructure since November 2022, handling pricing, risk assessment, and related guardrails across Aave’s V2 and V3 markets. In that period, Aave’s total value locked expanded markedly, underscoring the centrality of robust risk tooling to the protocol’s growth. By late February, Aave had crossed a historic milestone in lending activity, with cumulative lending volume advancing past the trillion-dollar mark, a milestone the project highlighted as a first for the DeFi sector.

Goldberg framed the decision as one driven by a misalignment over risk management and the scope of Chaos’s duties. “This decision was not made in haste,” he stated in a post to X. “We worked in good faith with DAO contributors. Aave Labs was professional and supported increasing our budget to $5m to retain us. However, we are leaving because the engagement no longer reflects how we believe risk should be managed.”

Aave’s account of the dispute diverges on what Chaos was seeking. Stani Kulechov contended that Chaos sought to become the sole risk manager and to substitute Chaos’s price oracles for Chainlink—an approach that would have effectively sidelined other risk partners and compromised Aave’s established two-layer risk model. Chaos’s proposal, Kulechov suggested, would have forced Aave to abandon its multi-provider framework, a move the protocol did not accept. Chaos later indicated it was examining winding down its risk consultancy, even as Aave reportedly offered to double the compensation to keep Chaos onboard.

Beyond the personnel dynamics, the departure arrives at a moment of heightened sensitivity around risk in Aave’s community. The ecosystem has recently grappled with high-profile events that tested the resilience of its risk tools, including a $50 million loss traced to a user interacting with Aave’s interface on March 12. In response, Aave rolled out a shielded risk feature designed to deter high-risk trading behavior, signaling a public push to bolster user safeguards even as internal governance wrestles with funding and control questions.

Risk architecture at stake: Chaos’s demands vs. Aave’s model

At the heart of the disagreement is Aave’s two-layer economic risk model, which blends on-chain risk pricing with external risk data. Chaos has been integrated into the back end of that risk framework, providing pricing and risk management services that supported V2 and V3 liquidity and lending operations. The move toward a broader, multi-provider risk architecture—anchored by partners like Chainlink—was a core feature of Aave’s design philosophy as it expanded and upgraded to V4.

Goldberg argued that Chaos’s push to become the sole risk provider, coupled with a desire to substitute its price oracles for Chainlink’s, would have undermined the protocol’s diversification of risk inputs. Kulechov, conversely, stressed that Chaos’s demand would displace established partners and thrust Chaos into a governance role that Aave does not appear prepared to concede. The exchange underscores a broader tension in DeFi: how to balance centralized expertise with multi-source resilience in a rapidly evolving risk landscape.

In practical terms, the split leaves Aave poised to continue with LlamaRisk and other risk partners as it advances V4 and maintains its two-layer model. Chaos had suggested it could take on a more centralized risk-management posture, but Aave’s leadership signaled a preference for a governance-driven, multi-vendor approach, particularly as the platform expands its risk surface with new features and markets. The dispute also highlights a broader industry question: what responsibilities do risk managers owe when a protocol experiences a failure, and who bears the blame when risk controls falter?

Operational realities of the migration and broader implications

The timing of Chaos’s exit aligns with Aave’s ongoing transition from V3 toward V4, a process that executives warned could stretch over months or even years as liquidity and markets migrate and the new feature set is absorbed into existing ecosystems. Goldberg noted that ongoing operations would require maintaining both V3 and V4 during the migration window, a workload that can be substantial for any risk provider. He warned that without clear safety harbors or settled legal precedents, risk governance remains an area of ambiguity with real consequences when things go wrong.

Kulechov framed the disruption as manageable and non-disruptive to Aave’s immediate operations. He emphasized that Chaos’s departure did not affect Aave’s smart contracts, token listings, or network integrations, and that the protocol would continue collaboration with LlamaRisk to ensure a smooth transition. The episode sits against a backdrop of ongoing governance debates about funding and revenue allocation within Aave Labs, a debate that has punctuated discussions about how the DAO should remunerate development and risk oversight in a high-growth, capital-intensive ecosystem.

For users and investors watching the DeFi risk space, the episode underscores two distinct strands: the push for diversified risk inputs that mitigate single points of failure, and the practical realities of a multi-year migration that tests the stamina of risk tooling and governance structures. The fact that Aave achieved a meaningful lending-volume milestone while navigating this internal shift demonstrates the resilience of its ecosystem, but it also raises questions about the pace of migration and the potential for further shuffles among risk partners as V4 scales.

Cointelegraph’s coverage of related risk and governance developments provides broader context for these tensions. For instance, Aave’s response to the March incident and the subsequent shield feature was part of a wider market emphasis on user protection and risk-aware design. The departure also sits within the wider narrative of DeFi risk management evolving from boutique, single-provider arrangements toward resilient, multi-provider ecosystems that can weather shocks and governance disputes alike.

As Aave moves forward, the roadmap will hinge on how smoothly LlamaRisk can integrate and how quickly the V4 platform absorbs legacy markets and liquidity from V3. Chaos’s exit, while financially notable—the firm had been engaged at a $5 million level—illustrates the bargaining power that risk providers can wield in a high-stakes DeFi environment and the lengthier arc of governance negotiations that can accompany critical infrastructure changes.

For readers tracking the real-world implications, the key questions are clear: will Aave maintain a diversified, resilient risk framework as V4 expands? How quickly will the migration reduce the operational overlap between V3 and V4? And what lessons will the DeFi community draw about risk governance, budgeting, and partnerships from this high-profile split?

Investors and developers should watch for updates on Aave’s transition timeline, any new risk-partner arrangements, and how the community approaches risk coverage as V4 matures. The coming months will reveal whether the industry’s move toward multi-provider risk management proves more robust in practice, or if further shifts among top risk suppliers test the protocol’s continuity and user protection standards.

In the meantime, Aave’s leadership reiterated its commitment to maintaining its two-layer risk model and to working with partners—including LlamaRisk—to ensure a seamless transition. The episode also reinforces the broader industry takeaway that risk management in DeFi remains a live, evolving discipline—one where governance choices, partner ecosystems, and architectural design all shape the safety and reliability that users rely on every day.

Readers can follow ongoing developments as Aave navigates V4 integration and the evolving risk landscape, including how new safeguards and partner arrangements influence user experience, security, and the protocol’s long-term resilience.

Related coverage: Aave’s shield initiative after a high-profile loss, and discussions around risk provision and governance within DeFi ecosystems, offer useful context for evaluating how this split may influence future risk partnerships and platform upgrades. Aave Shield rollout and ongoing governance debates illuminate the environment in which Chaos and Aave operated.

Bitcoin pulled back to $68,589 in Asian hours Tuesday after Monday’s ceasefire-driven rally faded, as U.S. president Donald Trump set a Tuesday night deadline for Iran to agree to a deal and threatened to destroy “every bridge in Iran by 12 o’clock tomorrow night” if it does not.

The largest cryptocurrency is down 0.6% over 24 hours after touching $69,350 on Monday, when an Axios report about a potential 45-day ceasefire briefly pushed prices above $69,000. That optimism lasted about 12 hours. Ether fell 1% to $2,104, solana’s SOL dropped 2.7% to $79.75, XRP lost 1.6% to $1.32, and dogecoin slid 2.2% to $0.09. BNB held relatively flat at $598.

The pattern of the past six weeks continued in textbook fashion, where positive headlines breifly boost prices before negative comments cull any chances of extended recovery.

“This move looks less like a shift in fundamentals and more like positioning getting caught offsides,” said Diana Pires, chief business officer at sFOX. “Heading into the weekend, sentiment was heavily skewed bearish and short interest had built up across the market. Once ceasefire headlines hit, that positioning had to unwind.”

Monday’s bounce produced $196.7 million in short liquidations as bearish traders got caught by the ceasefire report. Tuesday’s pullback arrived when Iran reportedly passed to mediator Pakistan a rejection of the ceasefire proposal, demanding a permanent end to the war, lifting of sanctions, and reconstruction efforts in addition to safe passage through Hormuz.

U.S. crude climbed above $112 as Trump warned the military could put every power plant in Iran “out of business” if no deal is reached, even as he said talks were “going well.” Brent traded near $115.66, up 2.9% on the session. Elsehwhere, the S&P 500 posted its longest advance since January despite the whipsaw, with equities managing to hold small gains through the volatility.

The macro backdrop remains uncertain. U.S. services data showed the economy expanded at a slower pace in March, employment contracted at the sharpest rate since 2023, and input prices accelerated, a mix that gives the Fed no clear reason to cut or hold. Key inflation readings this week will add to the picture.

Bitcoin remains inside the $65,000 to $73,000 range it has traded in for the entirety of the conflict. Every rally has failed at the upper bound, every selloff has held the lower. What happens by midnight Tuesday, when Trump’s deadline arrives, will determine which end of that range gets tested next.

Bitcoin BTC$68,661.38 slid toward $68,000 on Tuesday, with traditional markets closed in Hong Kong for a long weekend, as repeated failures near $70,000 left the bitcoin market vulnerable to a break lower.

The drop came after another failed push above $70,000, with prices slipping quickly once they approached the lower end of the $65,000 to $73,000 range that has defined trading since late March. Intraday losses accelerated near that boundary, highlighting how little support exists when momentum turns.

That calm is not being driven by strong demand. Recent Glassnode data shows softer trading volumes and subdued onchain activity even as prices recover, indicating limited participation behind the move.

Meanwhile, in a note to CoinDesk, crypto-native trading and liquidity firm Caladan pointed to negative demand trends and ongoing distribution by large holders, leaving bitcoin reliant on macro-driven flows and derivatives positioning rather than broad-based accumulation.

The result is a market that looks stable on the surface but is structurally fragile if that balance shifts.

That vulnerability is becoming more visible in derivatives markets. Options data shows traders are increasingly paying up for downside protection, with implied volatility holding above realized levels, a sign that investors are bracing for a larger move even as spot prices remain rangebound.

Analysts who spoke to CoinDesk earlier point to a negative gamma setup below roughly $68,000, where market makers may be forced to sell bitcoin as prices fall in order to hedge their exposure.

The danger: this dynamic can accelerate declines, transforming a gradual move into a sharper, self-reinforcing rout that could drag prices toward the $60,000 level if support breaks.

Prediction markets reflect a similar shift in sentiment. On Polymarket, traders are assigning a 68% probability that bitcoin will trade at or below $65,000 in April, while higher targets such as $80,000 have seen sharply declining odds.

Taken together, the signals point to a market where the calm may hold, but only until key levels give way.

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The Securities and Exchange Commission is close to proposing a “regulation crypto” fleshing out its approach to overseeing the crypto industry and drawing lines between transactions that might be securities and where they aren’t, the agency’s head said Monday.

SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the commission’s new reg crypto is in front of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, meaning it’s one step away from being published. This rulemaking is focused on the Securities Act of 1933 and will address fundraising and startup exemptions, among other issues, he said Monday at an event hosted by Vanderbilt University and the Blockchain Association.

He told CoinDesk after his question-and-answer session that the SEC also intends to put out its long-awaited innovation exemption soon.

“We’d love to have reactions and everything else,” he said. “It’s not a rule as such but obviously we need to know how it’s functioning and if people have problems with it or not.”

One aspect to this exemption, he said, is that it wouldn’t disadvantage incumbents and focus solely on startups.

“We want people really to experiment within [that] framework,” he said.

Midterm watch

At multiple points during his talk, Atkins pointed to Congress’s role, saying that his agency’s rulemaking process was well underway despite whatever Congress may do.

“I think we have enough of a runway now, even notwithstanding what may happen in the midterms — although I really still want a friendly Congress obviously — they can throw tacks on the road in front of our tires but they’re not going to really slow us down.”

Atkins also said the audience needed “to be engaged in this upcoming election,” pointing to Senator Bernie Moreno as an example.

“To have Congress really veer off track is not going to any of us any good, and it’s going to put a lot more questions into the future because people then just have ‘oh gosh, maybe this is again a passing phase,’” he said. “We’ve got to make sure that your friends are in Congress. I think you saw how that really paid benefits in the last election.”

Chaos Labs has parted ways with the Aave ecosystem after serving as the crypto lending protocol’s main risk service provider for three years, citing a budget dispute and disagreements over how Aave should manage risk.

“This decision was not made in haste,” Chaos Labs founder Omer Goldberg said in a post to X on Monday. “We worked in good faith with DAO contributors. Aave Labs was professional and supported increasing our budget to $5m to retain us. However, we are leaving because the engagement no longer reflects how we believe risk should be managed.”

Aave Labs CEO Stani Kulechov said that Chaos didn’t depart on bad terms, but claimed that Chaos pitched a proposal seeking to become the sole risk provider and thus force out other partners — a compromise Aave wasn’t willing to accept.

Chaos played a key role in Aave’s back-end infrastructure, from pricing loans and managing risk in the Aave V2 and V3 markets since November 2022, during which Aave’s total value locked rose fivefold to $26 billion.

Risk has been a major talking point in the Aave community after a user lost $50 million in a trade while interacting with Aave’s interface on March 12. The following week, Aave said it would introduce an “Aave Shield” protection feature to deter users from high-risk trades.

As for Chaos’ departure, Goldberg said there became an increasing misalignment over how the parties thought risk should be managed. He noted that some Aave contributors had left, raising its workload, while also arguing that Aave V4’s expanded functionality introduced additional operational and legal risks that fell on Chaos’ shoulders.

“While Aave Labs is optimistic about a swift migration to V4, history suggests these transitions take months and even years,” Goldberg said. “Until V4 fully absorbs V3’s markets and liquidity, both systems need to be operated and managed simultaneously. The workload during the transition doesn’t halve. It doubles.”

Weighing the risk of a protocol failure, Goldberg said, “There is no regulatory framework, no safe harbor, and no settled law that answers the question of what a risk manager or curator owes when a protocol fails. If things work, the work is invisible. If things break, the blame is not.”

As such, “We are walking away from a $5 million engagement,” Goldberg said.

Chaos wanted Aave to boot LlamaRisk, Chainlink: Kulechov

Aave Labs CEO Stani Kulechov told a slightly different story, stating that Chaos wanted to be the sole risk manager and use its price oracles instead of Chainlink’s.

Following that request would have forced Aave to push out its other risk protocol partner, LlamaRisk, and thus abandon its two-layer economic risk model.

Related: DeFi lender Aave launches on OKX’s Ethereum L2, X Layer

Kulechov added Aave was unwilling to integrate Chaos-built price oracles, citing Aave’s “track record” with Chainlink’s services, which its “users are currently more comfortable with at scale.”

He also said Chaos was already “exploring winding down its risk consultancy services,” and that Aave had offered to double its payment to $5 million to retain them.

Cointelegraph reached out to Chaos Labs for comment.

Kulechov noted that Chaos’ departure hasn’t disrupted the Aave protocol, its smart contracts, token listings or network integrations.

Moving forward, Aave said it “will work closely with LlamaRisk to ensure a smooth transition” and maintain its two-layer economic risk model. 

Chaos’ departure comes amid a protocol-wide feud over how much funding and revenue control Aave Labs should receive versus Aave’s decentralized autonomous organization.

Despite the internal issues, Aave crossed the $1 trillion mark in cumulative lending volume in late February, marking a first in the DeFi industry.

Magazine: Animoca teams up with Ava Labs, Shrapnel on Steam: Web3 Gamer