An Aave Request for Comment proposes changing the signer setup for the GHO Stewards admin role, which operates the protocol’s GHO Steward contracts. The plan would replace the current 3-of-4 arrangement of individual signers with a 2-of-3 structure made up of entity Safes controlled by Aave Labs, LlamaRisk and TokenLogic.
Under the proposal, the GHO Risk Council Safe address itself would not change. Because the steward contracts point to that Safe address rather than to the underlying signer list, the update would not require changes to the steward contracts or a separate on-chain governance payload.
What the stewards control
The GHO Risk Council runs the GHO Steward contracts, listed in the proposal as GhoAaveSteward, GhoBucketSteward, GhoGsmSteward and GhoCcipSteward. Those contracts are designed to let the council make timely and bounded parameter changes for GHO, but only within limits already defined by Aave governance.
The signer update would apply to the GHO Risk Council Safe on each network where the steward role is active, according to the proposal’s specification.
How the signer set would change
The proposed revision keeps the Safe address unchanged while altering its internal ownership and threshold rules. The threshold would move from 3 of 4 to 2 of 3, and the signers would shift from individual wallet addresses to entity-level Safes.
The proposed signer set names Aave Labs at 0x4b752551fC6345A7de82F76fd7a5015CA16d1a74, LlamaRisk at 0xb291232F480F41c75802C4a60F1D2AC03404Afef, and TokenLogic at 0x9DE1d45e2786b03498289959203F25b29B4D1193.
Reasons given for the change
The proposal says the update is meant in part to reflect the organizations that are actively contributing to the Aave ecosystem. It also argues that shifting to entity Safes would improve continuity, because each organization could manage its own internal signer roster without requiring repeated committee-level rotations whenever personnel changes occur.
The rationale also points to operational efficiency. A 2-of-3 structure across three service providers is presented as a way to preserve the council’s ability to act within the response windows assumed by the steward contracts, while reducing dependence on a larger group of individual signers.
The text adds that if a service provider were to leave Aave abruptly, the steward role could continue operating under this model, which the authors say would help preserve confidence in governance processes.
No AIP planned if community backs it
Because the GHO Steward contracts reference the Council Safe address and that address would remain the same, the proposal says no steward contract update and no Aave governance payload are needed. Instead, the change would be carried out as a standard Safe owner-management transaction signed by the current Council signers.
The process outlined in the proposal starts with community feedback on the ARFC. If consensus is reached, the measure would move to a Snapshot vote. If that Snapshot returns a YAE result, the current signers would execute the signer update directly.
Source: governance.aave.com