# \[ARFC\] Arbitrum USDC Migration

**URL:** <https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-arbitrum-usdc-migration/15160>\
**Category:** Governance\
**Created:** [October 19, 2023, 9:31pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-arbitrum-usdc-migration/15160 "2023-10-19T21:31:22Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sakulstra](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/sakulstra/32/2002_2.png) [@sakulstra](https://governance.aave.com/u/sakulstra)\
**Post date:** [October 20, 2023, 4:49pm UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-arbitrum-usdc-migration/15160/2 "2023-10-20T16:49:49Z")

</div>

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?

---

_[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/arfc-arbitrum-usdc-migration/15160)._