Been digging into TermMax's collateral and liquidation setup today for the CreatorPad round — #TermMax @TermMax — and one number stopped me mid-scroll.
Pulled up the fee dashboard, split by chain, trailing 7 days. Total protocol fees: $3,071.6. Of that, $2,999 came from BSquared. Ethereum — the chain holding 98.5% of TermMax's entire TVL — kicked in a grand total of $0.17. Not a typo. Seventeen cents.
Sat with that for a sec while I finished my coffee. The whole pitch here is fixed-rate lending with liquidation and physical-delivery mechanics doing quiet work to keep positions solvent. But "quiet" on Ethereum, where basically all the capital sits, isn't reassuring, it's just... unclear. No fee activity could mean no liquidations because positions are healthy. Could also mean thin usage relative to the TVL parked there. The dashboard doesn't tell you which.
Meanwhile a chain with a sliver of total value locked is doing almost all the visible fee-generating activity. hold up — is that where the actual borrowing/liquidation cycle is happening, and Ethereum's just... sitting as a deposit vault?
Didn't expect the risk engine's "proof of work" to show up loudest on the smallest chain in the stack. Makes me want to check active loan distribution next before I say anything about how "protected" this really is across deployments.
Where's the borrowing actually happening versus where the money's just parked?
Pulled up the fee dashboard, split by chain, trailing 7 days. Total protocol fees: $3,071.6. Of that, $2,999 came from BSquared. Ethereum — the chain holding 98.5% of TermMax's entire TVL — kicked in a grand total of $0.17. Not a typo. Seventeen cents.
Sat with that for a sec while I finished my coffee. The whole pitch here is fixed-rate lending with liquidation and physical-delivery mechanics doing quiet work to keep positions solvent. But "quiet" on Ethereum, where basically all the capital sits, isn't reassuring, it's just... unclear. No fee activity could mean no liquidations because positions are healthy. Could also mean thin usage relative to the TVL parked there. The dashboard doesn't tell you which.
Meanwhile a chain with a sliver of total value locked is doing almost all the visible fee-generating activity. hold up — is that where the actual borrowing/liquidation cycle is happening, and Ethereum's just... sitting as a deposit vault?
Didn't expect the risk engine's "proof of work" to show up loudest on the smallest chain in the stack. Makes me want to check active loan distribution next before I say anything about how "protected" this really is across deployments.
Where's the borrowing actually happening versus where the money's just parked?