BTC BULLISH Long Entry $BTC
投稿
Maryam Al Turk
·
--
#termmax @TermMax
Guys I was checking TermMax’s DeFiLlama page this week and saw TVL at $31.22M, down about 7.2% over the trailing month. Nothing significant on its own, but it made me look back at the security side of the protocol while capital is moving around.
The 24/7 monitoring caught my attention this time.
TermMax says its smart contracts and wallets are continuously monitored for unusual or risky activity, with alerts going to the team when something potentially dangerous is detected. The security layer also uses analytics to look for suspicious behavior and possible attack patterns.
Pretty standard on paper.
Then I noticed the auto-pause mechanism.
That part changes the setup for me. An alert still leaves a gap between detection and human action. Someone has to notice it, figure out what’s happening and decide what to do.
With TermMax, a potential attack can trigger an automatic pause first, giving the team room to investigate while the protocol is effectively putting the brakes on.
That’s probably the part I would pay more attention to. Not just whether TermMax can detect something unusual, but what happens in those few moments after detection.
Because unusual activity can also just be unusual market activity.
so tell me
How much false positive risk is acceptable for an auto pause?🤔
$NVDA.US $GOOGL.US
Guys I was checking TermMax’s DeFiLlama page this week and saw TVL at $31.22M, down about 7.2% over the trailing month. Nothing significant on its own, but it made me look back at the security side of the protocol while capital is moving around.
The 24/7 monitoring caught my attention this time.
TermMax says its smart contracts and wallets are continuously monitored for unusual or risky activity, with alerts going to the team when something potentially dangerous is detected. The security layer also uses analytics to look for suspicious behavior and possible attack patterns.
Pretty standard on paper.
Then I noticed the auto-pause mechanism.
That part changes the setup for me. An alert still leaves a gap between detection and human action. Someone has to notice it, figure out what’s happening and decide what to do.
With TermMax, a potential attack can trigger an automatic pause first, giving the team room to investigate while the protocol is effectively putting the brakes on.
That’s probably the part I would pay more attention to. Not just whether TermMax can detect something unusual, but what happens in those few moments after detection.
Because unusual activity can also just be unusual market activity.
so tell me
How much false positive risk is acceptable for an auto pause?🤔
$NVDA.US $GOOGL.US