Three abbreviations—FT, XT, and GT—are squeezed into the mechanism page numbered @TermMax . On a first read, it’s easy to remember only the names. I went back and rearranged it by following the borrowing, lending/issuance, and maturity settlement, and the problem became clearer: in a fixed-term loan, why split it into three different kinds of rights. #TermMax
FT is more like a claim on a receivable due at maturity: at maturity, it can be exchanged for the corresponding debt asset at face value; the lender obtains it at a discount before maturity, and the difference between the discount and the face value becomes a fixed return. XT is the complementary part. The document states the relationship as 1 FT + 1 XT = 1 unit of debt asset. As maturity approaches, the value carried by both sides is reallocated; on the maturity date, FT completes settlement and XT goes to zero.
From the borrower’s side, collateral enters GT first, then generates FT according to the market’s MLTV constraints; afterward, it uses the existing Range Order to exchange out the required debt assets. From the lender’s side, it’s the other way around: using today’s principal to obtain an FT that will settle at face value at maturity. Neither side is really betting on future interest rates; instead, the term price is written into the deal at the time of trade.
GT is not another kind of yield instrument. It’s a position container in the ERC-721 form—bundling the collateral backing a specific borrowing or leveraged position with the associated debt. In other words, FT expresses “what you can get back at maturity,” XT expresses the other portion of value that is split out during the term, and GT governs “how much this collateral-backed position actually owes, and what it locks in.”
Only after breaking it down like this did I realize that TermMax isn’t simply converting ordinary borrowing/lending into a page with a fixed APR. Instead, it packages the claim, the time/term value, and the collateral position into composable on-chain objects, and then lets the market price them.
But the more finely you split the tokens, the higher the cost of understanding. Going forward, I’ll focus on two things: whether FT settlement at maturity is smooth, and whether XT has sufficient real transaction demand across different maturities and different levels of depth. Getting the mechanism diagram right is just the first step—liquidity is what ultimately determines whether this kind of split is actually usable.
FT is more like a claim on a receivable due at maturity: at maturity, it can be exchanged for the corresponding debt asset at face value; the lender obtains it at a discount before maturity, and the difference between the discount and the face value becomes a fixed return. XT is the complementary part. The document states the relationship as 1 FT + 1 XT = 1 unit of debt asset. As maturity approaches, the value carried by both sides is reallocated; on the maturity date, FT completes settlement and XT goes to zero.
From the borrower’s side, collateral enters GT first, then generates FT according to the market’s MLTV constraints; afterward, it uses the existing Range Order to exchange out the required debt assets. From the lender’s side, it’s the other way around: using today’s principal to obtain an FT that will settle at face value at maturity. Neither side is really betting on future interest rates; instead, the term price is written into the deal at the time of trade.
GT is not another kind of yield instrument. It’s a position container in the ERC-721 form—bundling the collateral backing a specific borrowing or leveraged position with the associated debt. In other words, FT expresses “what you can get back at maturity,” XT expresses the other portion of value that is split out during the term, and GT governs “how much this collateral-backed position actually owes, and what it locks in.”
Only after breaking it down like this did I realize that TermMax isn’t simply converting ordinary borrowing/lending into a page with a fixed APR. Instead, it packages the claim, the time/term value, and the collateral position into composable on-chain objects, and then lets the market price them.
But the more finely you split the tokens, the higher the cost of understanding. Going forward, I’ll focus on two things: whether FT settlement at maturity is smooth, and whether XT has sufficient real transaction demand across different maturities and different levels of depth. Getting the mechanism diagram right is just the first step—liquidity is what ultimately determines whether this kind of split is actually usable.
