# \[TEMP CHECK\] Safety Module Update Part I - Migrate AAVE/wETH Balancer v1 Pool to Balancer v2 **URL:** \ **Category:** Governance\ **Created:** [April 13, 2023, 11:06am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/temp-check-safety-module-update-part-i-migrate-aave-weth-balancer-v1-pool-to-balancer-v2/12748 "2023-04-13T11:06:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 4
**Author:** ![0xkeyrock.eth](https://dub1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/user_avatar/governance.aave.com/0xkeyrock.eth/32/6082_2.png) [@0xkeyrock.eth](https://governance.aave.com/u/0xkeyrock.eth)\ **Post date:** [April 24, 2023, 11:52am UTC](https://governance.aave.com/t/temp-check-safety-module-update-part-i-migrate-aave-weth-balancer-v1-pool-to-balancer-v2/12748/4 "2023-04-24T11:52:10Z")
Thank you for this update! Very thorough and we believe that the best option would be **Option 3** as it reduces counterparty risk with LSTs even after a very successful Shangai Upgrade. The liquidity to unlock such amounts of staked ETH could cause slight de-pegs in extreme stress scenarios. > [@John\_TV\_Locke](#): > > As part of that, we think the focus for SM assets should be on liquidity and correlation to Aave success. Ideally, BPTs with liquid assets (stables/ETH/wETH) will be very effective for the need. But until we have confidence in the availability of that liquidity, we do not think the DAO should allocate the resources (in AAVE cost or Service Provider time/cost). Lastly, we would push back on the systemic risk of ABPTs (Aave boosted pools) concern if AAVE is an acceptable asset for the SM. Based on the framework of liquidity and correl to Aave success, if ABPTs are not suitable for the SM then neither should AAVE. Totally in agreement here with @John_TV_Locke. --- _[View the full topic](https://governance.aave.com/t/temp-check-safety-module-update-part-i-migrate-aave-weth-balancer-v1-pool-to-balancer-v2/12748)._