What kept pulling at me while poking around $TMX’s compliance layer was how the "permissionless" framing quietly assumes a single default path, but the architecture actually forks early. #TermMax @TermMax ,Architecture markets itself as compliance-compatible for open markets, yet the default configuration routes every transaction through a verification checkpoint, while the permissionless mode sits one layer deeper, gated behind advanced settings most users won't touch. I watched a test transaction take four extra steps just to bypass the standard compliance hook, and the documentation frames this as "flexibility" rather than friction. It's a small design choice, but it reveals who the architecture is actually built for first: regulated intermediaries get the smooth path, while the permissionless use case everyone talks about in threads is technically possible but practically an opt-in afterthought. I kept expecting the two paths to converge somewhere in the middle, and they never quite did. Maybe that's fine, maybe compliance-first is the only realistic way to bootstrap trust here, but I'm not sure "permissionless" is the right word for a mode you have to dig for.