# \[ARFC\] Adjusting WBTC Parameters to Address BitGO Transition Risks

**URL:** <https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-adjusting-wbtc-parameters-to-address-bitgo-transition-risks/19096>\
**Category:** Governance\
**Created:** [September 18, 2024, 1:59pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-adjusting-wbtc-parameters-to-address-bitgo-transition-risks/19096 "2024-09-18T13:59:58Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![EzR3aL](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/ezr3al/32/10721_2.png) [@EzR3aL](https://governance.aave.com/u/EzR3aL)\
**Post date:** [September 19, 2024, 8:52am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-adjusting-wbtc-parameters-to-address-bitgo-transition-risks/19096/5 "2024-09-19T08:52:41Z")

</div>

Hi, I’m generally always in favour of protecting user and the protocol. I think for WBTC we need a solution somewhere in the middle. So I definitely support lowering supply and borrow caps but setting LTV to zero would again hurt user if the market is going down.  
Does it make sense to set LTV simply lower to allow user still depositing but making it unattractive for the moment? And maybe after cbBTC and tbtc are added these user are switching to alternatives. Or in the end wbtc will still be fine and Aave will offer 3 different wrapped BTC assets thus more diversity.

---

_[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-adjusting-wbtc-parameters-to-address-bitgo-transition-risks/19096)._