Can the TermMax task for wallet launch be done?
Many people think that after completing the first task, you only get a few cuts.
I think thinking this way is a bit one-sided.
We shouldn’t just look at the market cap estimate before the TGE; we should also consider other factors to gauge how the price might perform after the TGE.
Compared to the TGE of @TermMax , what I care about more is: why does a single loan have to be split into three things—FT, XT, and GT? What problem in DeFi lending does this design actually solve? $GRVT
The example given in the official TermMax documentation is very straightforward: if I use ETH worth 1000U as collateral, and with an MLTV of 80%, the maximum debt I can generate is 800U—meaning I can issue up to 800 FT. FT is essentially like a zero-coupon bond. If at that time the market price is 0.8 U, I can put in 640 U to buy 800 FT; at maturity, I redeem at the 800 U face value. That means there’s a 25% return between the principal and the maturity value. This example already explains TermMax’s core logic clearly.
But I think the more important thing is XT. The official mechanism states that at any moment, “1 FT + 1 XT = 1 debt token.” In other words, TermMax doesn’t magically create a fixed yield; it splits the principal and interest components of the debt. After maturity, the FT can be redeemed for the debt token, while the value of XT goes to zero. In other words, if I hold FT, I’m essentially holding a certain maturity value; if I participate in XT, I’m taking on the risk from another part of interest-rate changes. $ETH
Now let’s look at Range Order. I think this is actually the part most ordinary users are likely to overlook. In an example of a loan order provided by the official team, the interest rate range for the first 1.5 million funds drops from 17% to 15%. The next 200k then continues dropping from 15% to 10%. The final 170k even drops to around 7.5%. This shows that so-called “fixed interest rate” doesn’t mean all funds get filled at the same price; instead, execution can proceed along a curve step by step. $BNB
Finally, let me summarize TermMax in one sentence: I believe what it truly does is “separate and price interest-rate risk,” rather than simply turning DeFi lending into a risk-free yield. If the collateral price falls to the liquidation line, the risk still remains. #termmax
Many people think that after completing the first task, you only get a few cuts.
I think thinking this way is a bit one-sided.
We shouldn’t just look at the market cap estimate before the TGE; we should also consider other factors to gauge how the price might perform after the TGE.
Compared to the TGE of @TermMax , what I care about more is: why does a single loan have to be split into three things—FT, XT, and GT? What problem in DeFi lending does this design actually solve? $GRVT
The example given in the official TermMax documentation is very straightforward: if I use ETH worth 1000U as collateral, and with an MLTV of 80%, the maximum debt I can generate is 800U—meaning I can issue up to 800 FT. FT is essentially like a zero-coupon bond. If at that time the market price is 0.8 U, I can put in 640 U to buy 800 FT; at maturity, I redeem at the 800 U face value. That means there’s a 25% return between the principal and the maturity value. This example already explains TermMax’s core logic clearly.
But I think the more important thing is XT. The official mechanism states that at any moment, “1 FT + 1 XT = 1 debt token.” In other words, TermMax doesn’t magically create a fixed yield; it splits the principal and interest components of the debt. After maturity, the FT can be redeemed for the debt token, while the value of XT goes to zero. In other words, if I hold FT, I’m essentially holding a certain maturity value; if I participate in XT, I’m taking on the risk from another part of interest-rate changes. $ETH
Now let’s look at Range Order. I think this is actually the part most ordinary users are likely to overlook. In an example of a loan order provided by the official team, the interest rate range for the first 1.5 million funds drops from 17% to 15%. The next 200k then continues dropping from 15% to 10%. The final 170k even drops to around 7.5%. This shows that so-called “fixed interest rate” doesn’t mean all funds get filled at the same price; instead, execution can proceed along a curve step by step. $BNB
Finally, let me summarize TermMax in one sentence: I believe what it truly does is “separate and price interest-rate risk,” rather than simply turning DeFi lending into a risk-free yield. If the collateral price falls to the liquidation line, the risk still remains. #termmax