Recently I reworked the fixed-rate design for @TermMax and found that it doesn’t just keep the lending pool rate unchanged. Instead, it turns borrowing into a digital note with a clearly defined maturity date. Each market first determines three things: what asset to borrow, what collateral to receive, and the settlement date. After users lock in collateral, they receive GT, then mint FT; only after selling FT at a discount do they obtain the liquidity they need right now. In essence, the interest rate is the discount between the FT price and its face value at maturity.
The easiest thing to get confused by is XT. As specified in the documentation, 1 FT plus 1 XT corresponds to 1 unit of debt asset. At maturity, FT is settled at face value, while XT becomes zero. GT is an ERC-721 position certificate: the collateral and the debt are both recorded in it. Borrowers can repay using the debt asset or they can buy back FT to close the position. After several token exchanges like $BTC , you can combine borrowing, lending, and leverage—but users must understand what each of the three tokens does at different times.
Let’s switch to another example: FT is like the principal note that pays at maturity; XT is like the accompanying time-based option right; and GT is the record file that tracks the collateral and liabilities. The closer a note is to maturity, the nearer its price moves to face value. If you exit early, your buyback cost will also be affected by the $ETH quotes, liquidity, and the remaining term. So “fixed rate” doesn’t mean you can always exit at the same cost at any time.
Therefore, saying “fixed rate is simpler” is not accurate. TermMax provides a kind of exchange: returns and costs are more predictable, but the structure is more complex. Beyond APR, you also need to look at the term, the FT discount, the conditions for XT to go to zero, and the health of the GT position. People who fear floating-rate volatility might be willing to learn this mechanism; those who need frequent rebalancing should first confirm the exit path. Whether deterministic value is worth it depends on whether you can truly use these three layers of tokens correctly.#termmax
The easiest thing to get confused by is XT. As specified in the documentation, 1 FT plus 1 XT corresponds to 1 unit of debt asset. At maturity, FT is settled at face value, while XT becomes zero. GT is an ERC-721 position certificate: the collateral and the debt are both recorded in it. Borrowers can repay using the debt asset or they can buy back FT to close the position. After several token exchanges like $BTC , you can combine borrowing, lending, and leverage—but users must understand what each of the three tokens does at different times.
Let’s switch to another example: FT is like the principal note that pays at maturity; XT is like the accompanying time-based option right; and GT is the record file that tracks the collateral and liabilities. The closer a note is to maturity, the nearer its price moves to face value. If you exit early, your buyback cost will also be affected by the $ETH quotes, liquidity, and the remaining term. So “fixed rate” doesn’t mean you can always exit at the same cost at any time.
Therefore, saying “fixed rate is simpler” is not accurate. TermMax provides a kind of exchange: returns and costs are more predictable, but the structure is more complex. Beyond APR, you also need to look at the term, the FT discount, the conditions for XT to go to zero, and the health of the GT position. People who fear floating-rate volatility might be willing to learn this mechanism; those who need frequent rebalancing should first confirm the exit path. Whether deterministic value is worth it depends on whether you can truly use these three layers of tokens correctly.#termmax