If an FT moves to another wallet, what actually happens to the position underneath it?
That question made me look much deeper into TermMax.
The key distinction is simple: FT represents the fixed-rate, maturity-based claim, while GT represents the leveraged position holding the collateral and debt.
So when the FT moves, the collateral and debt don’t simply move with it. What changes hands is the claim represented by the FT.
That matters because the FT can be traded before maturity. Fixed-rate exposure doesn’t necessarily have to stay with the original holder until maturity.
That changed how I think about TermMax.
Once a fixed-rate claim becomes tradable, maturity becomes part of how the claim is priced. A claim with three months remaining can be priced differently from one with twelve months remaining.
Then comes the liquidity question.
TermMax lets market makers configure range orders across specific rate ranges. Those orders can help create liquidity around the rates where users actually want to borrow, lend, or leverage.
For fixed-rate markets, that matters because users aren’t only choosing how much they want to borrow or lend. They’re also choosing which rate and which maturity they want.
The real test is whether users will actually trade these transferable fixed-rate claims once incentives stop doing the heavy lifting.
That’s what I want to watch in practice.
@TermMax #TermMax $GRVT $GPS
That question made me look much deeper into TermMax.
The key distinction is simple: FT represents the fixed-rate, maturity-based claim, while GT represents the leveraged position holding the collateral and debt.
So when the FT moves, the collateral and debt don’t simply move with it. What changes hands is the claim represented by the FT.
That matters because the FT can be traded before maturity. Fixed-rate exposure doesn’t necessarily have to stay with the original holder until maturity.
That changed how I think about TermMax.
Once a fixed-rate claim becomes tradable, maturity becomes part of how the claim is priced. A claim with three months remaining can be priced differently from one with twelve months remaining.
Then comes the liquidity question.
TermMax lets market makers configure range orders across specific rate ranges. Those orders can help create liquidity around the rates where users actually want to borrow, lend, or leverage.
For fixed-rate markets, that matters because users aren’t only choosing how much they want to borrow or lend. They’re also choosing which rate and which maturity they want.
The real test is whether users will actually trade these transferable fixed-rate claims once incentives stop doing the heavy lifting.
That’s what I want to watch in practice.
@TermMax #TermMax $GRVT $GPS
