I did not consider providing liquidity on TermMax until I understood what single-sided provisioning actually meant for my risk exposure compared to traditional AMM liquidity positions.
In most AMMs liquidity providers sit on both sides of the market simultaneously. TermMax separates them. A maker chooses a side, borrow or lend, and sets their own spread parameters within that position. The protocol does not force you to take both sides of a trade you only want one side of.
That design reduces the impermanent loss dynamic that makes traditional AMM liquidity provision unpredictable for fixed income instruments.
What I kept examining was who takes the other side when spreads are set aggressively and whether thin participation on one side affects rate discovery for everyone else.
#termmax @TermMax
In most AMMs liquidity providers sit on both sides of the market simultaneously. TermMax separates them. A maker chooses a side, borrow or lend, and sets their own spread parameters within that position. The protocol does not force you to take both sides of a trade you only want one side of.
That design reduces the impermanent loss dynamic that makes traditional AMM liquidity provision unpredictable for fixed income instruments.
What I kept examining was who takes the other side when spreads are set aggressively and whether thin participation on one side affects rate discovery for everyone else.
#termmax @TermMax