@TermMax I couldn’t stop looking at TermMax’s 2% lending fee rate because it sounds way heavier than what it actually costs in real economic terms.

That surface metric is misleading. If the borrowing APR is 10% a 2% protocol rate is not 2% of principal. It is 2% of the interest layer. On a one-year position that is roughly 0.20% of notional. Shorten maturity to 30 days and the fee shrinks again because less interest accrues.

That changes how I judge TermMax. The real question is not whether the fee rate looks high or low. It is whether users value predictable debt enough to accept fixed maturity reduced flexibility and the need to manage rollover timing.

A $1,000 loan and a $1M loan can face the same rate while producing completely different fee revenue. Same percentage very different system economics.

To be fair fixed-rate borrowing solves a real coordination problem. But cleaner pricing is not the same as stronger demand.

What happens when borrowers prefer flexible liquidity during volatile periods? Do they stay with TermMax or only use it when certainty matters more than optionality?

That is the part I would watch. Fee design can be elegant, but user behavior decides whether the model compounds.
#termmax