Add tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Base
01Summary
WOOF! proposes to add tBTC as collateral to the cUSDCv3 market on Base network. The proposal implements risk parameters recommended by Gauntlet and has been validated through market simulations using Compound's scenario suite.
- Type
- protocol addition
Key changes
- Add tBTC (0xb125e6687d4313864e53df431d5425969c15eb2f) as collateral asset to cUSDCv3 on Base(high)
- Set tBTC collateral risk parameters based on Gauntlet recommendations including collateral factor, liquidation incentive, and supply cap(high)
- Deploy and upgrade Comet contract on Base to support new collateral asset(high)
Generated by Kvorum
02Description
Add tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Base
Proposal summary
WOOF! proposes to add tBTC into cUSDCv3 on Base network. This proposal takes the governance steps recommended and necessary to update a Compound III USDC market on Base. 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.
Further detailed information can be found on the corresponding proposal pull request and forum discussion.
Proposal Actions
The first proposal action adds tBTC to the USDC Comet on Base. This sends the encoded addAsset and deployAndUpgradeTo calls across the bridge to the governance receiver on Base.
03Mismatch analysis
The proposal description states that this is a single governance action which bridges an addAsset call (to onboard tBTC as collateral) plus a deployAndUpgradeTo call (to push the new configuration live) to the Base governance receiver. The decoded calldata shows exactly one action: sendMessage() on the L1 cross-domain messenger, targeting an address consistent with a Base governance receiver, carrying an ABI-encoded payload whose embedded function selectors decode to 'addAsset(address,(address,address,address,uint8,uint64,uint64,uint64,uint128))' and 'deployAndUpgradeTo(address,address)'. This matches the description's explicit claim word-for-word in terms of mechanism (bridge message carrying addAsset + deployAndUpgradeTo). The description does not enumerate the specific numeric risk parameters (collateral factors, supply cap, price feed address) inline, instead pointing to an external Gauntlet forum recommendation, which is a legitimate summarization rather than an omission of a material claim — the proposal never asserts specific numbers that could be checked against calldata. There is no evidence of a different target contract, an unrelated transfer, or an extra/missing action. Given the single action in both the description and calldata align precisely in structure and purpose, and no numeric claims in the prose contradict the calldata, I assess this proposal as consistent with high confidence in the mechanism-level comparison, though exact verification of the addresses matching the real tBTC token/price-feed would require off-chain lookup which is outside the scope of this review.
Generated by Kvorum
04Actions
- Target
- 0x866e…0afa
- Value
- 0 wei
- Function
- sendMessage(address,bytes,uint32)
- Arguments
{ "_target": "0x18281dfC4d00905DA1aaA6731414EABa843c468A", "_message": "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", "_minGasLimit": "3000000" }- Calldata
05Tally
Summed from votes
06Voters
| Voter | Choice | % of total | Rationale | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 070x0703…961b | For | 80K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 3F0x3fb1…4c8a | For | 80K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 660x66cd…65f9 | For | 80K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 360x36cc…ffc6 | For | 77.1K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| B30xb356…c826 | For | 50K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 4F0x4f89…fd3c | For | 50K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 050x0579…ca09 | For | 50K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 930x93cb…1a08 | For | 39.2K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| B40xb49f…7948 | For | 30K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 0B0x0b58…00f8 | For | 24.7K | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| CE0xce8a…8ca3 | For | 858 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| C50xc554…7759 | Against | 11.2 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| B90xb933…8dd1 | For | 9.4 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 210x21b3…fa75 | For | 2 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| B70xb792…89d7 | For | 2 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 170x1729…b879 | For | 1 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 790x79b6…ca6b | For | 0.7 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 2F0x2f2f…f78a | For | 0.5 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| 3F0x3fc3…d4f7 | For | 0.1 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
| D80xd8de…ae41 | For | 0.1 | 0.00% | — | 1y ago |
07Forum
- Add collateral tBTC to Compound Base Market ↗discourse · high confidence
Arguments for
- tBTC offers a decentralized, trust-minimized BTC-backed asset (not held by a centralized custodian) that would diversify Compound's Base BTC collateral options beyond cbBTC.— FREDY
- tBTC is already a proven collateral asset on Compound's Ethereum market and other major protocols (Aave, etc.), where it quickly reached and exceeded supply caps, demonstrating strong user demand and easing the case for Base approval.— FREDY
- Adding tBTC would give BTC holders new yield opportunities on Base and boost Compound's liquidity, fees, and TVL.— FREDY
- General expression of support for the proposal.— satisfiend
- Gauntlet's risk analysis concluded that with appropriate parameters (80% CF, 85% LF, 10% liquidation penalty, 75 tBTC supply cap) the asset can be safely listed, enabling the proposal to proceed.— Gauntlet
- The technical implementation (PRs, migration scripts, and most test suites) was completed successfully, supporting readiness to move the proposal to an on-chain vote.— dmitriywoofsoftware
Arguments against
- tBTC relies on bridging mechanisms (Wormhole) for minting and redemption, exposing the protocol to additional smart contract and systemic risk.— Gauntlet
- tBTC has significantly lower on-chain liquidity on Base compared to cbBTC, requiring a higher liquidation penalty and a conservative supply cap to limit slippage risk.— Gauntlet
Unresolved concerns
- The Slither static analysis check on the implementation PR failed, and this failure was not explicitly addressed or resolved in the thread.— dmitriywoofsoftware
- Bridge risk from reliance on Wormhole for tBTC minting/redemption was flagged but no mitigation or further discussion followed.— Gauntlet
- The proposal sat without risk-team review or governance progress for several months, and it remains unclear why the process was delayed despite tBTC's existing approval on Ethereum.— FREDY
Notable participants
- FREDYOriginal proposer who wrote the detailed listing proposal and repeatedly followed up to push the proposal through governance review.
- satisfiendCommunity member who briefly voiced support for the proposal.
- GauntletRisk management team that provided liquidity analysis, recommended risk parameters, and flagged bridge-related risks.
- dmitriywoofsoftwareContributor (WOOF!) who implemented the technical proposal, ran test suites, and moved the proposal to an on-chain Tally vote.
Generated by Kvorum
08Similar proposals
- compoundexecutedAdd cbBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Base94%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Mainnet90%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum89%
- compounddefeatedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum89%
- compounddefeatedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Arbitrum89%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDTv3 on Mainnet89%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cUSDTv3 on Arbitrum87%
- compoundexecutedAdd cbBTC as collateral into cUSDCv3 on Ethereum86%
- compoundexecutedAdd cbBTC as collateral into cUSDTv3 on Ethereum86%
- compoundexecutedAdd tBTC as collateral into cWETHv3 on Mainnet85%