$TermMax has a labeling problem that looks small—until you trace what actually happens after a fill.
The same "TermMaxOrderV2" setter can sit behind both sides of a Two-Way Range Order, but the resulting positions can be completely different.
A Lending Range Order fill can leave FT exposure.
A Borrowing Range Order fill can leave GT debt, collateral, LTV, and LLTV risk.
That means calling both sides simply “maker” hides the part the risk and treasury desks actually need to reconcile.
The confusing part gets worse:
• Same setter address
• Same order ID
• Same maturity
• Two APR ranges
• Remaining depth can still change as fills consume the order
So you can end up with FT already sitting on one side while Borrowing Range Order liquidity remains active on the other—potentially creating additional GT debt against collateral.
That is not just a naming issue.
For treasury, the relevant state may be the FT balance.
For risk, it is the live GT debt, collateral, LTV and LLTV.
One underlying "TermMaxOrderV2" setter.
Two very different states after execution.
So the real reconciliation question isn't simply “who is the maker?”
It is:
Which TermMax state did each side of the order actually create—and which desk owns that state now?
That distinction matters far more than the label.
#TermMax $ENA $NEIRO $ONG @TermMax
The same "TermMaxOrderV2" setter can sit behind both sides of a Two-Way Range Order, but the resulting positions can be completely different.
A Lending Range Order fill can leave FT exposure.
A Borrowing Range Order fill can leave GT debt, collateral, LTV, and LLTV risk.
That means calling both sides simply “maker” hides the part the risk and treasury desks actually need to reconcile.
The confusing part gets worse:
• Same setter address
• Same order ID
• Same maturity
• Two APR ranges
• Remaining depth can still change as fills consume the order
So you can end up with FT already sitting on one side while Borrowing Range Order liquidity remains active on the other—potentially creating additional GT debt against collateral.
That is not just a naming issue.
For treasury, the relevant state may be the FT balance.
For risk, it is the live GT debt, collateral, LTV and LLTV.
One underlying "TermMaxOrderV2" setter.
Two very different states after execution.
So the real reconciliation question isn't simply “who is the maker?”
It is:
Which TermMax state did each side of the order actually create—and which desk owns that state now?
That distinction matters far more than the label.
#TermMax $ENA $NEIRO $ONG @TermMax