[ARFC] Arbitrum USDC Migration

There’s not really any rush with the migration right?

  • Weekly 3% reduction in LTV and LT for USDC.e

Therefore any $ of liquidation seems unexpected and “to much”.

Why in the conservative scenario you would increase the USDC.e borrow cap?

  • (Depending on community preference) A conservative borrow/supply cap of 80% of circulating token supply onchain or an aggressive borrow/supply cap of 120% of circulating token supply onchain

I generally don’t understand that plan - why would you randomly increase supply & borrow caps for an asset not even 50% utilized? I guess risk stewards could do that on demand when risk-teams see fit? To me this doesn’t seem to make any sense.

With LSTs - where looping is a big thing-, there have been(i guess still are) big discussions about <= 50% of circulating supply. What would justify setting supply to 120% of circulating for an asset that is not even utilized?

If the community is aligned on off-boarding, wouldn’t the rational thing be to just freeze USDC.e, or even less intrusive set the caps below the current supply/borrow, lower ltv or similar?