Aave cooperates with forks following vulnerability

When Aave found a vulnerability in its code, multiple projects inherited the security flaw

article-image

Akif CUBUK/Shutterstock modified by Blockworks

share

DeFi lending protocol Aave is a popular candidate for “forking,” whereby developers take open-source code and launch a spinoff. 

But when its bug bounty program unearthed a potential vulnerability in Aave’s code, the exploit route wasn’t made public. 

Aave’s council of community guardians froze certain assets and markets on Aave after learning of the bug on Nov. 4. 

Over the following week, Aave DAO’s service provider bgdlabs made proposals to disable stable rate borrowing and end the minting of stable debt where borrowers would pay fixed rates in the short term that could be rebalanced later.

Aave lending markets returned to normal on Nov. 13 after the proposals were executed. But what about the forks that inherited Aave’s apparently exploitable code?

Bgdlabs wrote in a forum post that it had reached out to every Aave fork to offer advice on protection measures after the vulnerability came to light. At least three dozen projects have launched as spinoffs of Aave V2 or V3’s public code, per DeFiLlama.

“This is something that you see in computer security a lot,” said Luke Youngblood, founding contributor at the Moonwell lending protocol. “Say Apple or Google needs to tell smartphone manufacturers or other vendors in the space about a vulnerability that impacts their software or their solutions. They have to do this in a confidential way so that they don’t alert the hackers to where the hole is before it can be patched.”

The two largest Aave forks by total value locked (TVL), Spark and Radiant, both worked with Aave to double-check code for vulnerabilities, Marc Zeller, the founder of delegate platform Aave Chan Initiative, told Blockworks. 

Of the other forks, several posted on X that the platforms weren’t at risk — including Moola, which paused twice and removed its stable borrow function as Aave dealt with the vulnerability.

Bgdlabs said on Aave’s forum that it was helping Aave forks patch their code in keeping with DeFi’s communitarian ethos. 

“Even if we don’t have any responsibility to them (we are not providing services), we think the Aave community should show good values, as leaders in the space,” bgdlabs said of the forks.

Shira Brezis, co-founder of the DeFi risk and security firm Redefine, said Aave’s cooperation is par for the course in DeFi, noting that she’s in a group chat with some of her own company’s competitors. 

And perhaps the goodwill trends both ways — last week, Maker, of which Spark is a subDAO, passed a proposal to share some of Spark’s revenue with Aave. 

Aave also stands to gain from not seeing forks succumb to exploits.

“When users lose funds, it’s a bad outcome for everyone in the DeFi space. It makes people think crypto is insecure and makes them think it’s a hotbed for hackers,” Youngblood said.

In a Telegram message, bgdlabs’ co-founder Ernesto Boado said an eventual public disclosure of Aave’s code weakness “depends on different factors” and that their team “tried our best to notify forks” about the vulnerability.


Get the news in your inbox. Explore Blockworks newsletters:

Tags

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Upcoming Events

Marina Bay Sands Singapore

October 7, 2026

DAS Asia is a a single-day summit at Marina Bay Sands Singapore featuring conversations between the builders, investors, and global leaders are shaping the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in Asia & North America.

Hilton Park Lane, London

November 10-11, 2026

DAS London is a two-day summit at the Hilton Park Lane in London featuring conversations between the builders, allocators, and policy makers who are shaping the trajectory of the digital asset ecosystem in the UK, Europe, and North America.

recent research

Onchain Gacha Cover Image.png

Research

Onchain gacha platforms sold $284.3 million of digital card packs in July 2026, and Collector Crypt accounted for more than half of that activity. However, it buys back 92.9% of what it sells, which leaves it with a third of the category's revenue on more than half of its volume, and a quarter of its activity arrives through partner apps whose users it does not own. Courtyard runs the opposite model, a consumer app selling smaller packs to thousands of retail buyers who resell the cards to each other, and it took 59.7% of category revenue while growing through a month the category spent contracting. This report compares the five largest platforms on gross activity, buyback intensity, revenue after buybacks, consumer composition, marketplace liquidity, and distribution ownership, and finds Courtyard the strongest performer as of July 2026, with the qualification that none of the five discloses inventory costs or resale proceeds, so no platform in the category can yet be shown to be profitable.

Newsletter

The Breakdown

Decoding crypto and the markets. Daily, with Byron Gilliam.

Blockworks Research

Unlock crypto's most powerful research platform.

Our research packs a punch and gives you actionable takeaways for each topic.

SubscribeGet in touch

Blockworks Inc.

133 W 19th St., New York, NY 10011

Blockworks Network

PodcastsNewslettersEventsRoundtablesAnalytics