@TermMax caught my attention today because the more I looked at the numbers, the more the TVL headline seemed less important than what was happening underneath it.

@TermMax is built around fixed-rate borrowing, lending, and options, so I wanted to look at how much of the deposited liquidity is actually being put to work. The protocol reports more than $50M in TVL, while DefiLlama shows roughly $32M, with active loans around $22M. On DefiLlama’s numbers, that means active loans are close to 69% of TVL.

That ratio is interesting. For a protocol like @TermMax liquidity only becomes meaningful when it can support actual fixed-term borrowing and structured positions. A high loan-to-TVL ratio can therefore tell us more about capital efficiency than TVL alone.

What I find more interesting, though, is the gap between the reported figures. It raises a simple question: are different sources measuring different forms of liquidity, or is there capital being counted differently across the protocol?

Has anyone looked into the reason behind this discrepancy? I’d be curious to see what the underlying data says.

#termmax @TermMax

$ZORA

$HEMI

$ENA