I was researching TermMax’s borrowing model, and it reminded me of something simple when I borrow, I want to know what I owe, what I’m paying, and what collateral carries the risk.
DeFi often bundles these pieces together, making fixed rate borrowing harder to structure. TermMax separates them into three roles.
FT represents the principal claim, while XT represents the interest obligation. Together, they help express the economics of a fixed term loan.
GT is different. It is an NFT that holds the collateral and debt position, turning a complicated leveraged position into one on chain object.
This is where the design gets interesting: FT and XT handle the loan economics, while GT tracks the position backing them.
But splitting the system also adds concepts users must understand. It may suit structured borrowers and liquidity managers more than casual DeFi users.
So I’m wondering: does separating principal, interest, and collateral actually make fixed rate borrowing easier, or simply move the complexity somewhere else? #termmax @TermMax $TMX
$BTW
$BOME
$RICE
DeFi often bundles these pieces together, making fixed rate borrowing harder to structure. TermMax separates them into three roles.
FT represents the principal claim, while XT represents the interest obligation. Together, they help express the economics of a fixed term loan.
GT is different. It is an NFT that holds the collateral and debt position, turning a complicated leveraged position into one on chain object.
This is where the design gets interesting: FT and XT handle the loan economics, while GT tracks the position backing them.
But splitting the system also adds concepts users must understand. It may suit structured borrowers and liquidity managers more than casual DeFi users.
So I’m wondering: does separating principal, interest, and collateral actually make fixed rate borrowing easier, or simply move the complexity somewhere else? #termmax @TermMax $TMX
$BTW
$BOME
$RICE
