I recently re-read the product documentation for @TermMax , and I found that many people directly interpret “fixed interest rate” as “the position won’t be liquidated.” In reality, it’s like locking in a car loan’s interest: it doesn’t mean the vehicle price can’t change. TermMax fixes the borrowing cost and the time to maturity. After that, even if market interest rates move, the already-established debt won’t suddenly get repriced. But $ETH ’s collateral is still subject to price fluctuations, and the risk line doesn’t disappear just because the interest is fixed.
In standard lending and GT leveraged positions, as long as the LTV reaches the corresponding market’s LLTV setting, the liquidation mechanism will still trigger. If the loan isn’t fully repaid by maturity, it may also enter subsequent disposition. That means a fixed interest rate only removes the item “sudden changes in interest” from the risk table—it does not protect users from collateral price declines, oracle deviations, insufficient DEX depth, or failing to manage the maturity date.
TermMax’s Alpha follows a different logic. It emphasizes paying costs upfront and positions “no additional margin and no traditional liquidation risk” as a product feature. You can think of a regular GT as a collateral position with a warning line; Alpha is more like pre-buying a risk exposure with a clearly defined time horizon. The former requires continuous monitoring of health; the latter focuses more on the pre-paid $BTW cost and the maximum loss. Both can provide a leveraged experience, but that doesn’t mean the settlement methods can be mixed and matched. #termmax
So when I see “fixed costs” on the TermMax page, my first step isn’t to look at APR. Instead, I first confirm whether what you’re getting is FT, GT, or Alpha, and then verify this market’s MLTV, LLTV, maturity date, and liquidity. The liquidation threshold isn’t one universal number across all platforms—don’t simply apply parameters from other markets. Having a rich product structure isn’t the problem. What really matters is to clearly label each risk boundary: interest-rate locking answers the question of “will costs suddenly change,” while the liquidation line answers “can the position survive until maturity.”
In standard lending and GT leveraged positions, as long as the LTV reaches the corresponding market’s LLTV setting, the liquidation mechanism will still trigger. If the loan isn’t fully repaid by maturity, it may also enter subsequent disposition. That means a fixed interest rate only removes the item “sudden changes in interest” from the risk table—it does not protect users from collateral price declines, oracle deviations, insufficient DEX depth, or failing to manage the maturity date.
TermMax’s Alpha follows a different logic. It emphasizes paying costs upfront and positions “no additional margin and no traditional liquidation risk” as a product feature. You can think of a regular GT as a collateral position with a warning line; Alpha is more like pre-buying a risk exposure with a clearly defined time horizon. The former requires continuous monitoring of health; the latter focuses more on the pre-paid $BTW cost and the maximum loss. Both can provide a leveraged experience, but that doesn’t mean the settlement methods can be mixed and matched. #termmax
So when I see “fixed costs” on the TermMax page, my first step isn’t to look at APR. Instead, I first confirm whether what you’re getting is FT, GT, or Alpha, and then verify this market’s MLTV, LLTV, maturity date, and liquidity. The liquidation threshold isn’t one universal number across all platforms—don’t simply apply parameters from other markets. Having a rich product structure isn’t the problem. What really matters is to clearly label each risk boundary: interest-rate locking answers the question of “will costs suddenly change,” while the liquidation line answers “can the position survive until maturity.”