Compared to how high the hype could be pulled on the TGE day of August 25 (#termmax ), what I really want to see is this: after the rewards are redeemed on August 26, how many addresses will continue to stay at @TermMax ?
The current on-paper numbers really do look impressive: TVL has surged past $90 million, registered wallets have exceeded 1.5 million, and daily active users have reached 90,000. But when you break these figures down, those 90,000 daily actives make up only about 6% of total registrations. This glaring ratio exposes a serious operational question: within such a huge base, are most wallets the protocol’s real users—or just passersby who complete tasks and never look back?
There’s no denying that past protocol activities have had strong pull. A RLUSD deposit pool threw in a $5 million TMX subsidy. The Venus collaboration provided a 120x XP leverage. Binance wallets sent 200,000 XP. And close to the TGE, it added another 2 million TMX for a Booster Campaign. This high-intensity combo pushes users to complete multi-wallet connections, deposit funds, borrow frequently, and check in—over just two days, the RLUSD treasury was flooded with $20 million, fully validating the throughput efficiency of the user acquisition engine.
The problem is: once those highly subsidized “injections” wear off, can retention stand up to scrutiny? What’s truly worth tracking is how much deposit balance can still be left on the order book after 7 days—and even 30 days—when the activity ends, and how many addresses are proactively using the product rather than doing things just to earn XP, AP, or MP points. $BTC
If the deposits remain solid even after subsidies stop, then this growth can be considered successful—turning traffic into protocol assets. Otherwise, if every time people have to be awakened by an even bigger reward pool, then 1.5 million registrations are just expensive acquisition results. After the TGE, what TermMax most needs to prove isn’t how many new wallets it can still attract, but why old wallets have a reason not to leave.
The current on-paper numbers really do look impressive: TVL has surged past $90 million, registered wallets have exceeded 1.5 million, and daily active users have reached 90,000. But when you break these figures down, those 90,000 daily actives make up only about 6% of total registrations. This glaring ratio exposes a serious operational question: within such a huge base, are most wallets the protocol’s real users—or just passersby who complete tasks and never look back?
There’s no denying that past protocol activities have had strong pull. A RLUSD deposit pool threw in a $5 million TMX subsidy. The Venus collaboration provided a 120x XP leverage. Binance wallets sent 200,000 XP. And close to the TGE, it added another 2 million TMX for a Booster Campaign. This high-intensity combo pushes users to complete multi-wallet connections, deposit funds, borrow frequently, and check in—over just two days, the RLUSD treasury was flooded with $20 million, fully validating the throughput efficiency of the user acquisition engine.
The problem is: once those highly subsidized “injections” wear off, can retention stand up to scrutiny? What’s truly worth tracking is how much deposit balance can still be left on the order book after 7 days—and even 30 days—when the activity ends, and how many addresses are proactively using the product rather than doing things just to earn XP, AP, or MP points. $BTC
If the deposits remain solid even after subsidies stop, then this growth can be considered successful—turning traffic into protocol assets. Otherwise, if every time people have to be awakened by an even bigger reward pool, then 1.5 million registrations are just expensive acquisition results. After the TGE, what TermMax most needs to prove isn’t how many new wallets it can still attract, but why old wallets have a reason not to leave.