the 6% never moved.

the trade still got worse.

that was the TermMax leverage detail i kept blaming on the wrong number.

i had a yield-bearing asset doing 12%.

TermMax could let me borrow against it at a fixed 6%, use the borrowed capital to increase the collateral exposure, and wrap the collateral + debt position into GT.

12 coming in.

6 going out.

add leverage to the spread.

pretty easy story to like.

and the comforting part was the 6%.

i did not have to wonder whether utilization somewhere would push funding to 9, then 14, while i was already inside the position.

TermMax had locked that side.

then the collateral yield dropped to 4%.

nothing happened to my loan.

that is what made it weird.

the GT still had the debt.

the TermMax borrowing rate was still 6%.

maturity had not changed.

nobody repriced my fixed funding because market conditions got uglier.

the exact number i wanted protected was still protected.

except now i was borrowing at 6 to increase exposure to something earning 4.

and leverage had not stopped working.

it was just multiplying a spread i no longer wanted multiplied.

i think i had quietly turned “fixed-rate leverage” into “predictable leveraged return.”

those are not the same thing.

TermMax can remove the moving borrowing-rate problem.

it cannot force yield-bearing collateral to keep producing the APY i used when i entered.

that 12% belongs to another mechanism.

rewards can fall.

underlying yield can compress.

and the GT does not need to be broken for any of that to hurt.

which is why i keep coming back to the 6%.

if it had jumped to 15%, the failure would feel obvious.

but here TermMax did exactly what i asked.

6% stayed 6%.

the unstable number was sitting on the other side.

12 became 4.

same fixed debt.

very different reason to want the leverage.

TermMax could lock one edge of that spread.

i am still wondering why i ever treated the distance between them like something fixed too.

@TermMax #TermMax #termmax $AVAAI $ONG $BOME