@TermMax ‎Spent some time mapping TermMax's three-token system, and one line in the docs reframed the whole thing for me: Collateral Value equals GT Value plus the Value of the Loan itself, where GT Value is defined as Collateral minus the Value of Debt. The tokens aren't just three separate objects, they're pieces of one equation that has to balance.
‎
‎FT is an ERC-20, functioning as a zero-coupon bond — 110 FT-USDC redeems for 110 USDC at maturity, so buying it for 100 USDC locks a 10% return over a one-year term. But the docs specify that number scales with maturity, not just holds constant — a 180-day FT at the same discount annualizes to roughly 20%, not 10%. XT is defined more precisely than I expected too: it's not just "the other half," it's specifically the present value of the interest the borrower owes, separated out from the principal. GT is the position wrapper — ERC-721, tracking collateral and debt as one unit, capped by MLTV.
‎
‎What caught my attention is that XT isn't filler, it's a distinct financial instrument representing interest risk on its own, priced separately from FT's principal risk. Splitting principal from interest at the token level is what makes the whole system's zero-sum equation hold — no value appears or vanishes anywhere in the chain. #TermMax
‎
‎The missing piece for me is real secondary-market depth for XT specifically, since it's pricing something as narrow as short-term interest risk alone.
‎
‎

"Which token matters most to you?"

#termmax

@TermMax