KVORUM
compoundSource: Compound governor bravo · #44

Legacy market maintenance: WBTC and REP

executedMay 2, 2021, 12:27 AM UTCby540x54a3…e189

01Summary

AISummary by Kvorumclaude-haiku-4-5

This proposal continues deprecating legacy WBTC and completes deprecation of REP. It raises the Reserve Factor for legacy WBTC to 100% (eliminating supply interest), disables new borrowing and minting on legacy WBTC (while keeping it as valid collateral), and sets REP's collateral factor to 0%. Existing users are not liquidated.

Type
protocol deprecation

Key changes

  • Legacy WBTC Reserve Factor raised to 100%, eliminating supply interest rate(high)
  • New borrowing disabled for legacy WBTC market via _setBorrowPaused(high)
  • New minting/supplying disabled for legacy WBTC market via _setMintPaused(high)
  • REP collateral factor set to 0%, completing its deprecation nine months after new usage was disabled(high)

Notable concerns

  • Legacy WBTC remains valid collateral despite deprecation to prevent liquidation of existing users
Contracts0xc11b1268c1a384e55c48c2391d8d480264a3a7f40x158079Ee67Fce2f58472A96584A73C7Ab9AC95c10x3d9819210a31b4961b30ef54be2aed79b9c9cd3b
Generated by Kvorum
model: claude-haiku-4-5
provider: anthropic
profile: anthropic-fast-v1
prompt: v1.0
generated: 2mo ago
Read the description ↗

02Description

126 words

Legacy market maintenance: WBTC and REP

In Proposal 41, we began the process to migrate WBTC to a modern upgradable cToken contract.

The new WBTC cToken has become widely adopted, with $2.2B supplied.

This proposal continues the deprecation process for the legacy WBTC market, following the process established for SAI and REP.

The Reserve Factor for the legacy asset will be raised to 100%, which removes the supply interest rate, and supplying and borrowing (new usage) will be disabled. The legacy WBTC cToken will still be effective collateral, and existing users will not be liquidated or materially impacted.

Finally, the proposal completes the deprecation of REP, by lowering its collateral factor to 0%, nine months after Proposal 17 disabled new usage of the asset.

Discussion

03Mismatch analysis

AIMismatch analysis by Kvorumclaude-sonnet-5
Consistent

The description makes three concrete claims: (1) raise legacy WBTC reserve factor to 100%, (2) disable new supply and borrow on legacy WBTC while leaving it usable as collateral for existing users, and (3) reduce REP's collateral factor to 0%. The calldata contains exactly four actions: action 0 sets the reserve factor on the known legacy cWBTC address to 1e18 (100%), matching claim 1 precisely after unit conversion. Actions 1 and 2 call _setBorrowPaused and _setMintPaused (true) on the same legacy cWBTC address, which directly implements disabling new borrowing and supplying while leaving the market otherwise functional (collateral factor untouched), matching claim 2. Action 3 sets the collateral factor of the cREP token address to 0, matching claim 3. All targets align with the known legacy WBTC and REP cToken addresses, and there are no extra actions (e.g., fund transfers, role changes) that the description fails to mention. No numeric, target, or directional mismatches were found. The proposal's prose is a faithful, complete summary of the on-chain actions.

Generated by Kvorum
model: claude-sonnet-5
provider: anthropic
profile: anthropic-strong-v1
prompt: v1.0
generated: 2mo ago
Review the decoded actions ↗

04Actions

4 total
#0_setReserveFactor(uint256)chain 0x1
Target
0xc11b…a7f4
Value
0 wei
Function
_setReserveFactor(uint256)
Arguments
{
  "0": "1000000000000000000"
}
Calldata
#1_setBorrowPaused(address,bool)chain 0x1
Target
0x3d98…cd3b
Value
0 wei
Function
_setBorrowPaused(address,bool)
Arguments
{
  "0": "0xC11b1268C1A384e55C48c2391d8d480264A3A7F4",
  "1": true
}
Calldata
#2_setMintPaused(address,bool)chain 0x1
Target
0x3d98…cd3b
Value
0 wei
Function
_setMintPaused(address,bool)
Arguments
{
  "0": "0xC11b1268C1A384e55C48c2391d8d480264A3A7F4",
  "1": true
}
Calldata
#3_setCollateralFactor(address,uint256)chain 0x1
Target
0x3d98…cd3b
Value
0 wei
Function
_setCollateralFactor(address,uint256)
Arguments
{
  "0": "0x158079Ee67Fce2f58472A96584A73C7Ab9AC95c1",
  "1": "0"
}
Calldata

05Tally

Summed from votes

Voters54
VP participating868.9K
Outcome (current)For
Current support100%

06Voters

54 total

No votes recorded yet.

07Forum

AIForum synthesis by Kvorumclaude-sonnet-5
sentiment · mixedthread · constructive

Arguments for

  • Legacy immutable cToken contracts cannot support new risk-management and recovery features, so migrating to an upgradeable implementation is overdue and beneficial.— blck, massnomis, dvf
  • The new JumpRateModelV2 interest rate model is a clear improvement over the old linear model for WBTC.— dvf, massnomis
  • The migration also fixes the known recursive/in-kind liquidation issue affecting older markets.— blck, mistertom
  • The deployed contracts (cWBTC, implementation, interest rate model) were independently reviewed and confirmed to match expected parameters, supporting confidence in the technical execution.— arr00
  • Since both old and new markets will coexist for a while, users can migrate at their own pace without being forced immediately.— arr00, Sirokko

Arguments against

  • Upgradeable contracts sacrifice the value of immutability, removing guarantees that protocol rules can't be changed by governance later.— Sirokko
  • Starting the legacy migration process with a large market like WBTC rather than a smaller one like BAT or ZRX is risky and not ideal.— akirillo, arr00
  • L2 scaling solutions might arrive soon and could reduce the gas costs of migration, making immediate migration premature.— dabar90, Sirokko

Unresolved concerns

  • Without a migrator contract, users must pay multiple gas fees (redeem, approve, mint) or repay loans entirely to move positions, which is costly and burdensome.— suspect78, brad5155, joshua
  • Switching COMP distribution to the new market immediately advantages technically sophisticated users who can migrate quickly, disadvantaging others before a migrator exists.— akirillo, suspect78
  • There is no clear plan or timeline for a community- or Compound-funded gas subsidy/migrator to ease the transition.— tatsuzou12, phoenix, arr00
  • Lack of clear communication/documentation about the migration process and its implications for users has caused confusion.— brad5155, tatsuzou12
  • Long delay before any community-built migrator appeared, and its legitimacy/security was not officially vetted by the core team.— 3.1415r, mistertom

Notable participants

  • blckOriginal proposer who described the migration plan, new contract features, and answered technical questions.
  • arr00Verified deployed contracts, discussed COMP distribution timing, and advocated for a subsidized migrator before forcing migration.
  • akirilloRaised concerns about migration order (starting with a large market) and fairness of immediate COMP distribution switch.
  • SirokkoProvided philosophical pushback on upgradeability and practical guidance on migration timing for different user types.
  • suspect78Raised early concerns about gas costs and migration logistics for borrowers and suppliers.
  • brad5155Repeatedly questioned the purpose and cost of migration, highlighting user confusion.
  • tatsuzou12Argued Compound should cover gas fees since the change originates from protocol-side decisions.
  • mistertomAsked about liquidation fixes and later shared information about a community-built migrator.
  • dvfSupported the proposal while suggesting further research into optimal interest rate parameters.
  • massnomisExpressed early support for moving away from legacy contracts while requesting more IRM justification.
Generated by Kvorum
model: claude-sonnet-5
provider: anthropic
profile: anthropic-strong-v1
prompt: v1.0
generated: 2mo ago
Open the thread ↗