When I saw Unitree Technology’s first-day surge of 629.44% during a sell-wall moment, my first reaction was still to hold my hand down. The overall market is weak, yet a new stock can ignite sentiment so easily that people may mistake the hype for value.
I’ve also been getting a similar feeling from TermMax lately: the more imaginative a product is, the less you should only look at the flashy high yields on the surface.
I quickly went through the BNB Chain market and the Alpha mechanism. What caught my attention wasn’t actually “no liquidation,” but rather how the capital can exit after a fixed term.
TermMax now determines the lending interest rate and the maturity date in advance, and on BNB Chain it has also set up markets like USDT/$BNB and WBNB/$BTC.
I have to say, this design is packed with substance—especially when market interest rates swing violently, borrowers at least don’t have to guess the financing cost every day. The official team has also structured Alpha into a pre-paid Premium Call/Put design, which reduces the pressure of traditional leverage where people constantly stare at the liquidation line.
But the deeper I look, the more I feel the real difficulty isn’t “making it fixed,” but whether it’s still liquid after being fixed.
For example, in a 90-day market, the yield looks great today—but what if after 30 days you suddenly want to exit? Who will take the other side? If the terms get chopped up too finely, could the theoretically tradable FTs, positions, and Vaults end up turning into lots of small markets?
Another pitfall is cognitive cost. Interest rates, terms, collateral ratios, and Premium are all buried in the product structure. Web2 users might place orders just by seeing an annualized number, while Web3 users may not really have calculated the risks clearly either.
So I’m not going to look only at TVL, APY, or points.
Fixed interest rates solve the “how to calculate” part. Liquidity decides the “whether it can actually be used” part.
With TMX nearing the TGE, what TermMax really needs to prove may be whether this fixed-income market structure can leave behind genuine demand.
#TermMax $TMX @TermMax
I’ve also been getting a similar feeling from TermMax lately: the more imaginative a product is, the less you should only look at the flashy high yields on the surface.
I quickly went through the BNB Chain market and the Alpha mechanism. What caught my attention wasn’t actually “no liquidation,” but rather how the capital can exit after a fixed term.
TermMax now determines the lending interest rate and the maturity date in advance, and on BNB Chain it has also set up markets like USDT/$BNB and WBNB/$BTC.
I have to say, this design is packed with substance—especially when market interest rates swing violently, borrowers at least don’t have to guess the financing cost every day. The official team has also structured Alpha into a pre-paid Premium Call/Put design, which reduces the pressure of traditional leverage where people constantly stare at the liquidation line.
But the deeper I look, the more I feel the real difficulty isn’t “making it fixed,” but whether it’s still liquid after being fixed.
For example, in a 90-day market, the yield looks great today—but what if after 30 days you suddenly want to exit? Who will take the other side? If the terms get chopped up too finely, could the theoretically tradable FTs, positions, and Vaults end up turning into lots of small markets?
Another pitfall is cognitive cost. Interest rates, terms, collateral ratios, and Premium are all buried in the product structure. Web2 users might place orders just by seeing an annualized number, while Web3 users may not really have calculated the risks clearly either.
So I’m not going to look only at TVL, APY, or points.
Fixed interest rates solve the “how to calculate” part. Liquidity decides the “whether it can actually be used” part.
With TMX nearing the TGE, what TermMax really needs to prove may be whether this fixed-income market structure can leave behind genuine demand.
#TermMax $TMX @TermMax