Tokenized stocks becoming collateral is the easy part. The more interesting question is what happens when someone actually wants to borrow against them.
TermMax is already sitting around $90M in TVL, with roughly $22M in active loans. Its fixed-rate model makes the borrowing side harder to ignore because the cost isn't just “what’s the rate today?”
Take a tokenized SPY or NVDA position. If I lock it as collateral, I care about three things pretty quickly: how much I can borrow, what that borrowing costs for a known maturity, and what happens to my capital while I wait.
That last part is where I think TermMax gets interesting.
A floating-rate market can make borrowing feel cheap one week and annoying the next. Fixed-rate borrowing gives me a number I can actually plan around. But it also creates a different problem: if the fixed rate is too expensive compared with the return I expect from the collateral, the trade stops making sense.
So tokenized stocks don't automatically create borrowing demand.
The useful metric after the collateral arrives is utilization. Are people actually borrowing against these assets, and at what fixed rates?
TermMax says its product is available across 120+ countries and supports 10 chains. That's plenty of distribution.
Now I want to see whether the borrowing side can make those tokenized assets economically useful, not just depositable.

What matters most after tokenized stocks become collateral?
#termmax @TermMax