#termmax @TermMax One TermMax audit fix made me think differently about what a “price update” actually means inside a fixed-rate market.
An order is not priced from one number alone. TermMax uses a virtual reserve of X Token (XT) alongside a pricing curve to determine where the order sits and how its price changes as more liquidity is taken.
The audit found that those two pieces could previously be updated separately.
That matters because each input can be valid on its own while the combination is not. A new virtual XT reserve paired with an old curve, or the other way around, can describe a pricing state that was never actually intended.
So the issue is not simply whether the pricing formula is correct. It is whether all of the inputs feeding that formula still describe the same version of the order.
What I don't know yet is how broadly TermMax now enforces that consistency across every path that can reprice or reconfigure an order.
The stronger evidence would be that every repricing path preserves the same rule: a quote can only be produced from one internally consistent order state. That goes beyond checking whether the reserve and curve are individually valid, or even whether one update path changes them together.
What matters is whether a mixed old-and-new configuration can be ruled out everywhere the order can change.
The question is whether TermMax now treats price as one coherent state across an order, rather than a collection of separate settings that can drift out of sync.
I am watching repricing paths, order updates and the tests that enforce that consistency.
$VELVET
An order is not priced from one number alone. TermMax uses a virtual reserve of X Token (XT) alongside a pricing curve to determine where the order sits and how its price changes as more liquidity is taken.
The audit found that those two pieces could previously be updated separately.
That matters because each input can be valid on its own while the combination is not. A new virtual XT reserve paired with an old curve, or the other way around, can describe a pricing state that was never actually intended.
So the issue is not simply whether the pricing formula is correct. It is whether all of the inputs feeding that formula still describe the same version of the order.
What I don't know yet is how broadly TermMax now enforces that consistency across every path that can reprice or reconfigure an order.
The stronger evidence would be that every repricing path preserves the same rule: a quote can only be produced from one internally consistent order state. That goes beyond checking whether the reserve and curve are individually valid, or even whether one update path changes them together.
What matters is whether a mixed old-and-new configuration can be ruled out everywhere the order can change.
The question is whether TermMax now treats price as one coherent state across an order, rather than a collection of separate settings that can drift out of sync.
I am watching repricing paths, order updates and the tests that enforce that consistency.
$VELVET
