Aave considers shutting six V3 markets, removing 50 low-usage reserves in major cleanup move
An Aave governance proposal is seeking to streamline the protocol’s footprint by winding down its V3 money markets on six blockchains and delisting dozens of barely used assets. The initiative would impact around 50 low-activity reserves and 21 matured Pendle principal tokens (PTs), covering a total of 98.1 million dollars in supplied liquidity and 15.6 million dollars in outstanding debt across the affected deployments.
The recommendation comes from DeFi risk management provider LlamaRisk, which worked alongside other Aave service contributors to assess the performance and risk of Aave’s multichain expansion. Based on their review, they advised fully offboarding all 25 reserves on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium and Aptos, as well as removing an additional set of low-use listings across a broader set of 11 deployments.
Technically, the measure has been introduced as an ARFC (Aave Request for Comment) – a detailed governance proposal designed to solicit feedback and provide a blueprint for changes that could later be implemented through a formal Aave Improvement Proposal (AIP). An ARFC does not itself constitute an onchain decision; any actual shutdown, freezing or delisting would still require a subsequent AIP and successful onchain vote.
The proposed withdrawal from Aptos is especially notable because Aave only launched its V3 market there roughly 11 months ago. According to LlamaRisk’s analysis, liquidity on Aptos has collapsed by about 94% over the most recent six-month period, while quarterly revenues from that deployment have dropped below 1,000 dollars. In that context, continuing to maintain the market is seen as offering little economic upside while still carrying technical and security overhead.
Across the other chains, Aave had already taken significant steps toward deprecation. Every reserve on Scroll, zkSync, Metis and Soneium has already been frozen, meaning no new borrowing or supplying is allowed while existing positions can be unwound. Sonic and Aptos remain active at the time of the proposal but are now recommended to be frozen as well, effectively beginning their own sunset process.
These moves build on an earlier “temp check” on Aave’s broader multichain strategy, which concluded on December 5, 2025. That signal vote drew approximately 923,400 votes in favor, with less than 1% opposed, and endorsed several key principles: raising the reserve factor on underperforming instances, shutting down selected markets such as those on zkSync, Metis and Soneium, and introducing a minimum annual revenue threshold of 2 million dollars for any new deployment to be considered worthwhile.
Scroll later joined the list of networks marked for deprecation through an accelerated route. LlamaRisk submitted a direct-to-AIP proposal that froze every Scroll reserve and increased reserve factors on selected markets, framing the change as the final step in unwinding Aave’s presence there after a rapid decline in both network liquidity and protocol usage.
In parallel, Aave unveiled a significantly updated risk framework on June 9. The new guidelines cover asset risk, bridge risk, monitoring standards, and chain-level risk criteria, as well as explicit triggers for when reserves or entire deployments should be wound down. The current proposal to close six V3 markets and offboard low-use tokens effectively marks the first large-scale application of those new rules, signaling that they are now being treated as operational policy rather than purely theoretical guidance.
Founder Stani Kulechov emphasized that the consolidation is aimed at reducing what he called Aave’s “economic and technical risk surface.” By trimming underperforming instances and non-essential listings, the protocol can focus security reviews, monitoring resources and development efforts on a smaller set of higher-value, higher-liquidity markets, in line with the newly adopted Risk Framework and Technical Asset Listing Framework.
At the same time, Kulechov rejected the idea that this marks a reversal of Aave’s multichain ambitions. Instead, he described it as a strategic refocusing: Aave will continue to expand to new ecosystems where there is clear, sustainable demand, but it will subject all deployments to ongoing, data-driven risk and revenue assessments. If a chain or market underperforms or fails to meet predefined risk criteria, it can now be systematically frozen and eventually retired. This messaging comes shortly after Aave extended its presence to Avalanche, underlining that expansion is still on the table when fundamentals justify it.
Why Aave is pruning low-use reserves now
The move to offboard 50 reserves and dozens of Pendle PTs reflects a broader shift within DeFi from pure growth metrics to sustainable operations. Early in the multichain boom, protocols often deployed to as many networks as possible to capture users and liquidity, even if activity on some chains remained thin. Today, that approach increasingly clashes with cost, risk and security realities.
Each additional chain and reserve Aave supports introduces more smart contracts to maintain, more bridges and oracles to monitor, and more attack surfaces to defend. For low-volume markets with negligible fees, the potential cost of a bug, exploit or integration failure can far outweigh the limited income they generate. By methodically offboarding small or stale reserves, Aave can reduce complexity while concentrating liquidity in fewer, more robust pools, which often leads to tighter spreads, deeper books and better user experience.
Economic thresholds and the $2 million floor
The introduction of a 2 million dollar annual revenue floor for new instances marks an important evolution in Aave’s governance philosophy. Rather than approving new deployments solely based on ecosystem hype or short-term incentives, the community is now anchoring decisions to clear economic performance criteria.
If a new chain fails to reach a sustainable revenue level within a reasonable timeframe, it becomes a candidate for deprecation, regardless of its narrative appeal. This approach not only protects Aave from being overextended but also sends a signal to potential partner networks: liquidity mining and marketing alone are no longer enough; there must be a pathway to real, recurring protocol income and durable user demand.
What the wind-down means for users and borrowers
For users active on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium or Aptos, a wind-down does not mean an immediate loss of funds. Typically, when Aave freezes a reserve or an entire market, users can still withdraw their deposits and repay outstanding loans; they simply cannot open new positions in those assets. Over time, as positions are gradually closed and liquidity drains, reserves can be fully offboarded and contracts deprecated.
However, the process is not entirely frictionless. Liquidity can become thinner as participants exit, which may affect borrowing costs or slippage when swapping to unwind positions on the underlying chain. Users with long-dated strategies or leverage built on these markets need to monitor governance decisions and plan exits to avoid being caught in illiquid or rapidly shrinking environments.
The role of Pendle PTs in the cleanup
The proposal’s inclusion of 21 matured Pendle principal tokens highlights another dimension of Aave’s risk and complexity management. PTs are yield-bearing derivatives tied to underlying assets and defined maturity dates. Once a PT has matured, its utility is largely exhausted, but it can still remain listed as a reserve if not explicitly retired.
Maintaining markets for fully matured PTs offers minimal benefit while leaving additional contracts and oracle feeds in place. By delisting these tokens, Aave reduces clutter in its listings, simplifies the interface for users, and limits exposure to edge-case behaviors in assets that no longer serve an active economic function.
How this fits into the broader DeFi maturation cycle
The proposed wind-down mirrors a wider pattern across decentralized finance: protocols are moving from hypergrowth at all costs toward disciplined, risk-adjusted operations. Many projects that once rushed to deploy on every emerging layer-1 and layer-2 network are now evaluating which chains deliver meaningful traction versus those that only add overhead and vulnerability.
In Aave’s case, the shift is particularly visible because the protocol is one of the largest and most systemically important lending platforms in the ecosystem. Its decisions about where to allocate resources and which chains to support help shape liquidity flows and influence where developers choose to build money markets, yield strategies and integrations.
Strategic focus on “core” networks
Although the proposal does not explicitly define which chains will be considered “core,” the pattern is clear: Aave is leaning toward networks with deep liquidity, strong developer communities and reliable infrastructure. Concentrating on fewer, more proven ecosystems can make risk assessments more reliable, oracle integrations more battle-tested and cross-chain bridge exposure easier to track and mitigate.
For chains that lose Aave markets, the consequences can be significant: fewer borrowing options, less composability and potentially diminished appeal to DeFi users. On the other hand, for networks that retain or gain Aave markets, the consolidation of liquidity can strengthen the local DeFi stack and improve access to credit for both retail users and sophisticated trading firms.
Governance as a continuous risk filter
A key takeaway from this episode is the growing sophistication of onchain governance as a risk filter. Instead of one-off listing decisions that remain in place indefinitely, Aave’s structure now supports continuous review: temp checks to gauge sentiment, ARFCs to refine details, and AIPs to execute changes. External service providers like LlamaRisk contribute specialized risk modeling and monitoring, but token holders still ultimately decide whether to adopt or reject recommendations.
This governance pipeline allows the protocol to respond to shifting market conditions-such as liquidity deterioration on a particular chain-much more quickly than traditional institutions could. It also makes clear that listings and deployments are not permanent privileges; they are contingent on ongoing performance, safety and alignment with the protocol’s long-term goals.
Implications for future chain launches and listings
Going forward, prospective partner chains and asset issuers will likely face a higher bar to gain and keep Aave support. They may need to demonstrate not only integration readiness and incentive plans but also robust security guarantees, bridge risk mitigation strategies and realistic user growth pathways that can sustain Aave’s minimum revenue expectations.
Internally, Aave’s contributors and risk managers will be able to use the updated framework as a playbook: define objective metrics for liquidity, revenue, volatility and security; monitor them over time; and trigger deprecation procedures when thresholds are breached. This should lead to a more predictable environment for users, with fewer surprise freezes and a clearer understanding of what it takes for a chain or asset to stay listed.
A turning point, not a retreat
In sum, the proposed closure of six V3 markets and the offboarding of 50 low-use reserves represents a consolidation phase for one of DeFi’s flagship protocols rather than a retreat from innovation. By shrinking its attack surface, eliminating economically insignificant markets and hard-coding more disciplined standards into governance, Aave is attempting to position itself for the next stage of growth-one defined less by raw chain count and more by depth, resilience and sustainable yield.
If implemented, the wind-down will serve as a real-world test of Aave’s new risk framework and governance processes. How smoothly users can exit, how quickly liquidity reallocates to remaining markets, and how the protocol balances safety with opportunity on new chains will offer important lessons for Aave and for the broader DeFi ecosystem navigating its own path from experimental frontier to durable financial infrastructure.