Add ETHx as collaterals into cWETHv3 on Mainnet
01Summary
This proposal adds ETHx (Staked ETH) as a collateral asset to Compound III's cWETHv3 market on Ethereum mainnet. The changes include configuring ETHx risk parameters based on Gauntlet recommendations and deploying an upgraded Comet contract version to support the new collateral.
- Type
- protocol addition
Key changes
- Add ETHx (0xA17581A9E3356d9A858b789D68B4d866e593aE94) as collateral to cWETHv3 with configured risk parameters including 85% initial LTV, 90% close factor, and 95% liquidation threshold(high)
- Deploy and upgrade Comet contract to new version to enable ETHx collateral support(high)
- Set ETHx/ETH price feed using Chainlink oracle at address 0xdd487947c579af433AeeF038Bf1573FdBB68d2d3(medium)
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
Add ETHx as collaterals into cWETHv3 on Mainnet
Proposal summary
Compound Growth Program [AlphaGrowth] proposes to add ETHx into cWETHv3 on Ethereum network. This proposal takes the governance steps recommended and necessary to update a Compound III WETH market on Ethereum. 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 on the recommendations from Gauntlet.
Further detailed information can be found on the corresponding proposal pull request and forum discussion.
Price feed
Exchange rate price feed of ETHx/ETH was provided by Chainlink team. The address of pricefeed that is used is 0xdd487947c579af433AeeF038Bf1573FdBB68d2d3
Proposal Actions
The first proposal action adds ETHx asset as collateral with corresponding configurations.
The second action deploys and upgrades Comet to a new version.
03Mismatch analysis
I compared the two decoded actions against the prose. Action 1 (addAsset) matches the described intent of adding ETHx as a new collateral asset with risk parameters, and action 2 (deployAndUpgradeTo) matches the described Comet upgrade step. However, the description explicitly names a specific Chainlink price feed address (0xdd487947c579af433AeeF038Bf1573FdBB68d2d3) for ETHx/ETH, while the actual addAsset calldata configures a different price feed address (0x9F2F60f38BBc275aF8F88a21c0e2BfE751E97C1f). This is a concrete, verifiable factual claim in the description that does not match the calldata, and price feed correctness is critical to how collateral is valued and liquidated in a lending market, so this warrants delegate attention. Other parameters (collateral factors, liquidation factor, supply cap) are not explicitly stated as numbers in the description (only referenced as 'Gauntlet recommendations'), so they cannot be flagged as mismatches. Given the high importance of price feed accuracy but the possibility this is an honest documentation error rather than a malicious redirection, I classify this as a material discrepancy with medium confidence, and recommend verification of the correct price feed address before the vote proceeds.
Discrepancies
- hightarget mismatch
The description explicitly states the ETHx/ETH price feed address is 0xdd487947c579af433AeeF038Bf1573FdBB68d2d3, but the calldata's addAsset call sets the price feed to 0x9F2F60f38BBc275aF8F88a21c0e2BfE751E97C1f — a completely different address. Since the price feed directly determines how ETHx collateral is valued for borrowing/liquidation, this mismatch is significant and should be verified before voting.
“The address of pricefeed that is used is 0xdd487947c579af433AeeF038Bf1573FdBB68d2d3”
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0x316f…36e3
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- addAsset(address,(address,address,uint8,uint64,uint64,uint64,uint128))
- Arguments
{ "0": "0xA17581A9E3356d9A858b789D68B4d866e593aE94", "1": [ "0xA35b1B31Ce002FBF2058D22F30f95D405200A15b", "0x9F2F60f38BBc275aF8F88a21c0e2BfE751E97C1f", "18", "850000000000000000", "900000000000000000", "950000000000000000", "2100000000000000000000" ] }- Calldata
- Target
- 0x1ec6…8779
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- deployAndUpgradeTo(address,address)
- Arguments
{ "0": "0x316f9708bB98af7dA9c68C1C3b5e79039cD336E3", "1": "0xA17581A9E3356d9A858b789D68B4d866e593aE94" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
No votes recorded yet.
07Forum
- Listing ETHx on Compound ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- ETHx represents a highly decentralized liquid staking solution with a large and growing number of permissionless node operators, reducing validator centralization risk.— gonemultichain, pennblockchain, TechFuture, knight_mayr
- ETHx has strong security practices, including triple audits, on-chain monitoring, and a sizable bug bounty, making it a reasonably safe collateral choice.— knight_mayr, trevor87
- ETHx launched with withdrawals enabled from day one, avoiding the depeg risks seen in other LSTs that lacked this feature.— trevor87
- ETHx's TVL, node operator count, and on-chain liquidity have grown substantially and consistently over time, indicating a maturing and increasingly viable collateral asset.— gonemultichain, mattgurbiel, knight_mayr, Michigan_Blockchain
- Listing ETHx fills a gap in Compound's markets (especially USDC) for decentralized LST collateral and helps Compound stay competitive with platforms like AAVE that haven't yet integrated it.— trevor87, Michigan_Blockchain, Sirokko
- The RedStone/Chainlink price feed architecture for ETHx is robust and reliable, with monitoring and redundancy safeguards in place.— mattgurbiel, jbass-oz
- Conservative, iteratively-updated risk parameters (collateral factor, liquidation factor/penalty, supply caps) proposed by Gauntlet appropriately manage the asset's risk profile.— knight_mayr, Gauntlet
Arguments against
- ETHx's DEX liquidity is insufficient to safely support listing as collateral in the USDC comet given the much larger USDC TVL at risk from price manipulation and arbitrage failure.— Gauntlet
- Slippage on ETHx-to-WETH swaps increased over time, requiring Gauntlet to lower the collateral factor, liquidation factor, and supply cap from its initial recommendation.— Gauntlet
- RedStone's oracle network does not yet have enough independent node operators to fully guarantee decentralization and security of the price feed.— jbass-oz
- A technical review found the initial price feed used incorrect decimal precision, which would have caused the on-chain proposal to fail execution.— jbass-oz
Unresolved concerns
- Whether RedStone's oracle node network is sufficiently decentralized long-term remains an open question, as node count was flagged as inadequate at review time.— jbass-oz
- Whether more capital-efficient parameters using an exchange rate oracle should be adopted was left for a future governance decision rather than resolved in this proposal.— Gauntlet, jbass-oz, knight_mayr
- Listing ETHx on the USDC comet (as opposed to only WETH) was rejected by Gauntlet due to liquidity/manipulation risk, leaving community members who wanted broader market inclusion without resolution.— Sirokko, Gauntlet
Notable participants
- knight_mayrProposer from Stader Labs who introduced ETHx, provided data updates, and responded to risk feedback throughout the thread.
- GauntletRisk manager who provided and iteratively updated collateral parameter recommendations based on liquidity conditions.
- mattgurbielRedStone Oracles representative who explained the price feed methodology and provided ongoing status updates.
- jbass-ozOpenZeppelin auditor who reviewed the RedStone oracle and the technical migration/PR implementation, flagging issues.
- gonemultichainDelegate who repeatedly voiced support and tracked ETHx growth metrics over time.
- trevor87Compound user who argued in favor based on security research and market conditions.
- pennblockchainFranklin DAO delegate expressing consistent support and requesting Gauntlet's parameter input.
- Michigan_BlockchainDelegate supporting the proposal and providing market risk/slippage data.
- SirokkoCommunity member who proposed prioritizing the USDC comet and suggested alternative initial caps.
- OlhaContributor who posted the final technical deployment/PR checklist and proposal description for enactment.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- compoundexecutedAdd osETH as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet89%
- compoundexecutedAdd tETH as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet89%
- compoundcanceledAdd tETH as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet89%
- compoundexecutedAdd tETH as collateral into cWstETHv3 on Mainnet88%
- compoundexecutedAdd weETH as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet88%
- compoundexecutedAdd ezETH as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet88%
- compoundexecutedAdd weETH as collateral into cUSDTv3 on Mainnet87%
- compounddefeatedAdd weETH as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Mainnet87%
- compoundexecutedAdd weETH as collateral into the cUSDCv3 on Mainnet87%
- compoundexecutedAdd rswETH as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet86%