Starting from April 18, 2026, the handling of security incidents related to rsETH will no longer be just a routine aftermath after a vulnerability. With an initial gap of approximately 163,200 ETH brought to light, this crisis quickly escalated from a singular technical mishap into a battle for asset recovery and confidence protection centered around the Aave ecosystem: on one side is the question of whether on-chain assets can be quickly recovered, and on the other, how the relevant protocols can maintain market confidence amidst the ongoing exposure to risk expectations.
So far, the lines have been clearly drawn. Approximately 73,700 ETH has been recovered, which means that the most difficult "first stage of stopping the bleeding" has not gone without progress; however, what will truly decide the subsequent direction is not "whether losses occurred," but how the remaining gap of approximately 89,500 ETH will continue to be filled. Centered around this main line, three parallel paths are forming: KelpDAO is responsible for ongoing asset recovery and has been advancing rsETH recovery work with Aave and ecosystem partners since April 18; the Arbitrum Security Council provides crucial stop-loss measures and has recovered about 30,700 ETH; meanwhile, the Aave Chan Initiative has taken the discussion to a more sensitive and realistic step—whether to provide a safety net framework for this crisis through financial arrangements. Thus, the event has entered a more complex phase: asset recovery is ongoing, and ecological repair solutions have also had to be put on the table.
163,200 ETH black hole strikes the ecosystem
What truly transformed this event from a localized accident into an ecosystem issue is not emotion, but the sheer size of the gap itself. According to public briefings, the starting point of this turmoil was a security vulnerability related to rsETH, which subsequently revealed an initial gap of about 163,200 ETH. For any protocol, this is not a number that can be quickly smoothed over through internal digestion or a few rounds of communication; once the scale reaches this magnitude, the problem no longer solely belongs to a particular project party, but will immediately spill over into collateral relationships, liquidity expectations, and the broader level of protocol confidence.
Because of this, the market’s focus quickly spread from KelpDAO itself. The briefing clearly characterizes the event: it is a process of “asset recovery and ecological response plan following a security incident.” In other words, the discussion is no longer just about “what went wrong,” but about “along which protocols will this gap continue to propagate.” Within this framework, Aave-related exposures naturally become the focal point, and outside concerns are not only about the paper losses but also whether risks will further evolve into ongoing questioning of protocol safety and credit structure.
It is particularly important to emphasize that the boundaries of currently available public information are equally clear. There are only two confirmed facts: first, the event originated from a security vulnerability related to rsETH; second, the initial gap is approximately 163,200 ETH. Apart from this, the briefing has not provided a complete attack path, execution details, or a more specific chain of events. Within such an informational framework, any further deduction regarding the method of attack, the invasion process, or the distribution of responsibility should not be taken as settled facts.
Therefore, the core contradiction at this stage is quite direct: a sufficiently large gap is forcing multiple participants to simultaneously confront the consequences beyond the technical incident. Recovering assets is certainly important, but in the eyes of the market, what is more troublesome is the systemic pressure represented by this 163,200 ETH—it makes KelpDAO’s risks no longer confined, and it quickly brings Aave-related risks and protocol confidence issues to the forefront. As a result, the event has completed a dangerous escalation: from the consequences of a vulnerability to ecological pressures.
Two paths recover 73,700 ETH
After the ecological pressure has been spotlighted, what appeared first was not abstract reassurances but two quantifiable paths for asset recovery.
The first path comes from KelpDAO. Since April 18, KelpDAO has been continuously coordinating with Aave and ecosystem partners to advance the rsETH recovery work, this line undertakes the most direct task of asset recovery for holders. So far, KelpDAO has recovered 40,300 rsETH, approximately equivalent to 43,000 ETH. This is the first genuine result of stopping the bleeding since the event entered the phase of public coordination, demonstrating a clear signal that “someone is taking responsibility.”
The second path comes from the Arbitrum Security Council. Compared to the former, which leans towards recovery and coordination, this path provides critical asset recovery actions. Currently, the Arbitrum Security Council has recovered approximately 30,700 ETH, further expanding the scale of recovered assets. This step has advanced the self-rescue of a singular protocol into a clearer cross-protocol collaboration: KelpDAO organizes recovery at the front end, while the Arbitrum Security Council fills in the key executions from the other side.
After combining both paths, a total of approximately 73,700 ETH has been recovered, which means the initial gap of about 163,200 ETH has been reduced to about 89,500 ETH. For asset handling following a security incident, this is undoubtedly the clearest and most quantifiable progress currently: cross-protocol collaboration has already shown results, and the effect is not merely a narrative of “unity,” but a genuine effort to minimize the paper gap.
However, recovering more than half does not equate to the crisis being resolved. The remaining gap of 89,500 ETH still looms over the ecosystem, and Aave-related risks and confidence issues have not automatically disappeared due to the effectiveness of the first phase of recovery. In other words, what the market sees now is that while the bleeding has been stopped, it is far from time to announce that the wound has healed.
5% yield cap creates buffer for filling the gap
Yet, with approximately 73,700 ETH recovered and a remaining gap of about 89,500 ETH, the market quickly realizes that the second path can no longer rely solely on continued recovery. The real issue on the table is how to design a sustainable payment channel for this section of the gap that has yet to be filled. It is against this backdrop that Aave Chan Initiative founder Marc Zeller proposed a new handling approach.
This proposal is named “DeFi United ETH.” According to currently disclosed information, its core is not complicated: to connect Aave’s wETH income to a dedicated ETH deposit treasury, and gradually cover the gap left by the rsETH incident through this treasury mechanism. In other words, this is not a script for “immediately erasing all losses,” but a financial engineering effort to organize ecological cash flow and convert it into long-term restoration capability.
What it attempts to solve is not the immediate disappearance of the paper hole, but to provide the market with a repair path that can be calculated, tracked, and expected. For an event that has entered the stage of public coordination and recovery, such a path is meaningful in itself: when participants know that the gap is not without a taker, panic does not have to continue to be priced in the worst-case scenario. Marc Zeller also explicitly listed “avoidance of market panic” as one of the objectives in proposing this plan.
It should be particularly pointed out that the current statement about the treasury having a “yield cap of 5% APR” comes from a single source and should only be viewed as a proposal detail requiring further confirmation, not as an established arrangement. At this stage, what the market truly sees is a direction: beyond recovering, the Aave ecosystem is starting to discuss how to use sustainable income to buy time for the remaining gap.
Beyond recovery, Aave must also maintain confidence
As the event enters its second half, the metrics the market uses to measure risk are no longer just about “how much ETH has been recovered.” After recovering approximately 73,700 ETH, the remaining gap of about 89,500 ETH is the true variable pressing on the expectations of participants in the Aave ecosystem. For the lending market, asset recovery can bring about the first layer of stopping the bleeding, but whether it can convince users, liquidity providers, and governance participants that this will not further evolve into prolonged discounting is determined by a reallocation of time, yields, and responsibilities across the entire ecosystem rather than just point-by-point recovery.
This is why recovery and the treasury have never been an either/or situation. The former is responsible for pushing down loss numbers, while the latter is responsible for pulling up market patience. One reduces the paper gap, while the other extends the time window for digesting the gap; the joint effect of both is what could potentially prevent the crisis from sliding further from a security incident into a trust crisis. Since entering the phase of public coordination and recovery on April 18, the interactions between KelpDAO, Aave, and Arbitrum stakeholders have already indicated that this handling is no longer just a matter of one protocol patching up its own hole but a systemic response under cross-protocol collaboration.
From this perspective, the “DeFi United ETH” deposit treasury proposed by ACI founder Marc Zeller is meaningful not just for money replenishment, but also for narrative supplementation. According to currently known information, the scheme aims to connect Aave’s wETH income to the treasury to gradually repay the gap, and one of its objectives is to avoid market panic. It represents another logic of crisis management: besides continuing to reclaim lost assets, the ecosystem also attempts to reorganize future revenues with financial engineering to buy time for the current gap. What is highlighted here is the dual reality exposed by this event—DeFi crisis management now involves not just technical fixes but also revenue redistribution and time trading for space.
However, the discussion framework is taking shape does not mean that the execution details have been settled. Whether there will be adjustments or even suspensions to rsETH reserve-related functions at a multi-chain level, or the progress of voting on the ACI proposal and community feedback, currently lacks confirmed information. In other words, what the market can currently confirm is still the parallel progression of the two lines of “continuing recovery” and “discussing ecological safety net proposals;” whether this collaboration and financial engineering can truly stabilize confidence in the Aave ecosystem will depend on whether subsequent execution is transparent and the pace is sufficiently fast.
The next three hurdles will determine if it can conclude
Therefore, whether this rsETH incident can truly move towards a conclusion now hinges on just three hurdles.
The first hurdle is whether the progress of recovery can continue. By April 24, 2026, the actions that the outside world can confirm are still concentrated on the two main lines of “continuing recovery of assets” and “discussing safety net plans for the treasury.” Recovering approximately 73,700 ETH has certainly reduced the initial gap of about 163,200 ETH, but the remaining gap of approximately 89,500 ETH still sits there, acting as a reference point for all future governance judgments, market pricing, and ecological negotiations. As long as the recovery scale can continue to expand, there is still room for the subsequent pressure to be dispersed and delayed; however, once recovery stagnates, the situation will quickly shift from “striving for repair” to “distributing losses.”
The second hurdle is whether the treasury proposal can move from concept to execution. The “DeFi United ETH” deposit treasury proposed by ACI founder Marc Zeller has provided the market with an imagination of an institutional buffer: if recovery continues to advance, such a scheme functions as an additional layer of buffer outside the gap, serving to alleviate panic and extend the handling window; but if recovery slows down, the treasury will no longer be just a buffer but will be forced to bear heavier political and economic pressures—who will concede income, who will bear time costs, and who will accept a longer repair cycle will all become sharper problems. More realistically, there is still a lack of sufficient confirmations regarding formal voting, more external commitments, and possible on-chain restrictions, which means the proposal still has a considerable way to go before it is truly implemented.
The third hurdle is whether the community is willing to accept a path of "exchanging time for repairs." For the affected party, time itself is a cost; for the protocol and ecosystem, time is the only variable left that can buy space. As long as the market still believes that recovery and safety nets can move forward simultaneously, there remains the possibility of maintaining patience; but if transparency is lacking and the pace slows, the number 89,500 ETH will continue to amplify doubts, and the community's tolerance for the repair plan will decrease accordingly.
From this perspective, the ultimate test of this incident may not just be about how to resolve the rsETH aftermath. It seems more like a premature stress test: when risks cross protocol boundaries and a single participant can no longer independently address the situation, can the DeFi ecosystem organize a joint firefighting response and stitch together asset recovery, governance coordination, and financial engineering into a workable emergency mechanism? The outcome of rsETH may only provide the first layer of answers; the deeper question is whether, when similar risks arise next time, the market can form the same cooperation more quickly.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
Official Telegram community: https://t.me/aicoincn
AiCoin Chinese Twitter: https://x.com/AiCoinzh
OKX benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=l61eM4owQ
Binance benefits group: https://aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=ynr7d1P6Z
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
