Add WBTC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Arbitrum
01Summary
Compound Growth Program proposes to add WBTC as collateral to the cWETHv3 market on Arbitrum. The proposal includes encoded calls to add the asset and deploy/upgrade the necessary contracts with risk parameters based on Gauntlet's recommendations. Market readiness has been confirmed through simulations.
- Type
- protocol addition
Key changes
- Add WBTC as collateral asset to WETH Comet market on Arbitrum(high)
- Deploy and upgrade Comet contract on Arbitrum with new WBTC parameters(high)
- Set risk parameters for WBTC based on Gauntlet recommendations(high)
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
Add WBTC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Arbitrum
Proposal summary
Compound Growth Program [AlphaGrowth] proposes to add WBTC into cWETHv3 on Arbitrum network. This proposal takes the governance steps recommended and necessary to update a Compound III WETH market on Arbitrum. Simulations have confirmed the market’s readiness, as much as possible, using the Comet scenario suite. The new parameters include setting the risk parameters based off of the recommendations from Gauntlet WBTC.
Further detailed information can be found on the corresponding proposal pull request and forum discussion.
Proposal Actions
The first proposal action adds WBTC to the WETH Comet on Arbitrum. This sends the encoded addAsset and deployAndUpgradeTo calls across the bridge to the governance receiver on Arbitrum.
03Mismatch analysis
The proposal describes a single high-level action: bridging an addAsset + deployAndUpgradeTo call pair to the Arbitrum governance receiver in order to add WBTC as collateral in the cWETHv3 market, with risk parameters based on Gauntlet's recommendations. The single decoded on-chain action is a createRetryableTicket call to the L1 Arbitrum Inbox (target chain 0x1, consistent with L1 being the origin of the bridge message), whose embedded calldata payload explicitly references the function signatures 'addAsset(address,(address,address,address,uint8,uint64,uint64,uint64,uint128))' and 'deployAndUpgradeTo(address,address)' — matching exactly what the description claims will be sent across the bridge. The value_wei attached corresponds to the L2 gas/submission fee typical for retryable tickets, which is standard bridging boilerplate and not something the description would be expected to itemize. I cannot fully decode the embedded asset-config parameters (collateral factors, supply cap, price feed) from the raw hex to verify they precisely match Gauntlet's published recommendations, so confidence is medium rather than high, but the structure, targets, and mechanism described align with the calldata. No numeric claims in the prose can be checked against a mismatched figure, no unexpected extra transfers or role grants appear, and no target substitution is evident. Given this, I find no discrepancy worth flagging under the conservative reporting bar — the description is a faithful, appropriately high-level summary of the single bridging action being executed.
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0x4dbd…ab3f
- Value
- 2342836500000000 wei
- Function
- createRetryableTicket(address,uint256,uint256,address,address,uint256,uint256,bytes)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0x42480C37B249e33aABaf4c22B20235656bd38068", "1": "0", "2": "1624010000000000", "3": "0x3fB4d38ea7EC20D91917c09591490Eeda38Cf88A", "4": "0x3fB4d38ea7EC20D91917c09591490Eeda38Cf88A", "5": "1437653", "6": "500000000", "7": "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" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
| Voter | Choice | % of total | Rationale | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 220x2210…d02e | For | 54.5K | 10.18% | — | 2y ago |
| B90xb933…8dd1 | For | 54K | 10.07% | — | 2y ago |
| 680x683a…6c02 | For | 50.1K | 9.35% | — | 2y ago |
| 7A0x7ae1…e585 | For | 50K | 9.34% | — | 2y ago |
| B40xb49f…7948 | For | 50K | 9.34% | — | 2y ago |
| 070x0703…961b | For | 50K | 9.33% | — | 2y ago |
| 130x13bd…8548 | For | 50K | 9.33% | — | 2y ago |
| DC0xdc1f…e432 | For | 50K | 9.33% | — | 2y ago |
| 7B0x7b3c…cc33 | For | 50K | 9.33% | — | 2y ago |
| TEtennisbowling.eth0xc3aa…f546 | For | 47.5K | 8.87% | — | 2y ago |
| 3F0x3fb1…4c8a | For | 25.6K | 4.77% | — | 2y ago |
| B30xb356…c826 | For | 3.9K | 0.74% | — | 2y ago |
| 6F0x6f9b…8a1d | For | 42.8 | 0.01% | — | 2y ago |
| 720x72c5…7708 | For | 12 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
| 050x0579…ca09 | For | 1 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
| 2F0x2f2f…f78a | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
| 060x06c4…66a2 | For | 0.1 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
| D80xd8de…ae41 | For | 0.1 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
| 880x88f6…0ec0 | For | 0 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
| 9E0x9e4d…9636 | For | 0 | 0.00% | — | 2y ago |
07Forum
- Add WBTC to WETH Comets on Ethereum and Arbitrum ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- WBTC collateral will bring more liquidity into the Compound protocol and enable WETH borrowing against WBTC, matching market demand demonstrated across other protocols.— dmitriywoofsoftware, Gauntlet
- High 0.98 correlation between WBTC and WETH creates an optimal scenario for achieving higher leverage while mitigating risk.— Gauntlet
- Significant market opportunity exists, with $128 million of WETH already borrowed against WBTC in Aave v3 on Ethereum and $16 million on Arbitrum, showing strong ecosystem demand.— Gauntlet
- Risk parameters are well-calibrated based on thorough Gauntlet analysis with appropriate collateral factor, liquidation factor, liquidation penalty, and supply caps for both Ethereum and Arbitrum.— Gauntlet, jbass-oz
- Implementation has passed extensive testing including Forge tests, gas profiler, contract scanning, unit tests, and mainnet-weth scenario simulations.— dmitriywoofsoftware
- OpenZeppelin independently confirmed the proposal executes as intended, uses appropriate WBTC/BTC and BTC/ETH price feeds, and adheres to Gauntlet recommendations.— jbass-oz
Arguments against
None surfaced.
Unresolved concerns
- Slither security analysis failed in the test runs for both Mainnet and Arbitrum PRs, though this was not addressed or explained in subsequent discussion.— dmitriywoofsoftware
- No detailed discussion of what the Slither failures represent or whether they pose actual security risks to the protocol.— dmitriywoofsoftware
Notable participants
- GauntletRisk analysis and parameter recommendations for WBTC collateral addition on both networks.
- dmitriywoofsoftwareCore implementer from WOOF team, submitted PRs and managed proposal execution for both Mainnet and Arbitrum additions.
- jbass-ozProvided OpenZeppelin audit confirmation of proposal execution and price feed validation.
- jbass-ozCommunity voice confirming technical correctness and security of the implementation.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- compoundexecutedAdd WBTC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet93%
- compoundexecutedAdd USDT and USDC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Arbitrum90%
- compoundexecutedAdd tETH as collaterals into cUSDCv3, cUSDTv3 and cWETHv3 on Arbitrum88%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum87%
- compounddefeatedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum87%
- compounddefeatedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum87%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDTv3 on Arbitrum87%
- compoundexecutedAdd cbBTC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Ethereum87%
- compoundexecutedAdd ezETH as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum85%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet85%