#termmax originally thought a timelock was basically a delay slapped onto every sensitive vault change.

TermMax doesnt quite do that.

For important curator changes, the normal path is submit, wait, then accept. During that waiting period, a guardian can revoke a pending change.

but the part that caught me is the asymmetry.

Changes TermMax classifies as risk-reducing can happen immediately. Increasing the timelock, decreasing the performance fee, or removing a market from the whitelist doesnt need the same delay. wait long $APR right now

Move the other direction and the rules tighten. Decreasing the timelock, increasing performance fees, adding a market to the whitelist or changing the guardian requires the full waiting period.

i actually like the logic.

The system isnt pretending every governance action carries identical risk. It makes it easier to retreat from exposure than expand it.

Still, that means security partly depends on whether the protocol has classified the direction of each parameter change correctly. A timelock can slow an action, but it cant decide whether the action itself is sensible. $CLO to the moon

Does asymmetric delay create a stronger vault safety boundary, or put too much weight on how each governance change gets classified??
#TermMax @TermMax
TermMax’s asymmetric timelock is…