#TermMax @TermMax $BOME $BTW $HANA
I was looking at a TermMax Vault scenario and initially thought the recovery collateral meant the problem was basically solved.
But it’s not that simple.
When a Market fails to follow the normal repayment route and physical delivery happens, the recovered collateral can end up inside the TermMax Vault underneath the ERC-4626 shares.That sounds positive — until you look at what the withdrawal request actually needs.
The Vault may now hold recovered collateral, while the user is still waiting for a completely different withdrawal asset. The best best project. Having collateral back inside the Vault doesn’t automatically convert it into the asset requested by the withdrawal queue.
So there seem to be two paths:
Wait for enough liquidity of the requested asset to arrive and process the withdrawal.
Or burn the ERC-4626 shares and take the delivered collateral instead.
And that second option simply moves the issue somewhere else.
The withdrawal queue might clear, but now the recovered collateral may need to be sold, potentially through another market and at a different price. The user still didn't originally request that collateral.
That distinction is what caught my attention.That’s the part of the TermMax design I’d be watching closely. #BinanceSquareTalks #termmax登上借贷赛道王者
I was looking at a TermMax Vault scenario and initially thought the recovery collateral meant the problem was basically solved.
But it’s not that simple.
When a Market fails to follow the normal repayment route and physical delivery happens, the recovered collateral can end up inside the TermMax Vault underneath the ERC-4626 shares.That sounds positive — until you look at what the withdrawal request actually needs.
The Vault may now hold recovered collateral, while the user is still waiting for a completely different withdrawal asset. The best best project. Having collateral back inside the Vault doesn’t automatically convert it into the asset requested by the withdrawal queue.
So there seem to be two paths:
Wait for enough liquidity of the requested asset to arrive and process the withdrawal.
Or burn the ERC-4626 shares and take the delivered collateral instead.
And that second option simply moves the issue somewhere else.
The withdrawal queue might clear, but now the recovered collateral may need to be sold, potentially through another market and at a different price. The user still didn't originally request that collateral.
That distinction is what caught my attention.That’s the part of the TermMax design I’d be watching closely. #BinanceSquareTalks #termmax登上借贷赛道王者