Provider at a glance
- Category
- Fixed-Rate Yield
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- term.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 76 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Term Finance
Onchain fixed-term repo
Fixed-Rate Yield
#3 Overall
Ranked #3 of 7 fixed-rate yield in the published ranking
76
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Term Finance right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9/10; the category best is 10
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What happens at maturity8/10 here; Pendle scores 10
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it4/10 here; the category best is 6
- The price of leaving early6/10 here; Exactly Protocol scores 9
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best fixed-rate yield protocol shows where it lands for you.
What will Term Finance cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Term Finance?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Term Finance
Compare all 4- 1Exactly Protocol4 points above · stronger on early exit cost (9 against 6)80
- 2Pendle3 points above · stronger on maturity handling (10 against 8)79
- 4Exponent Yield Exchange1 point below · stronger on early exit cost (8 against 6)75
For your setup
Find out if Term Finance fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Term Finance lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best fixed-rate yield protocolNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Term Finance ranks #3
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (21.3 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
328+8.198.010#3/7Loading evidence…
264+3.334.06#2/7Loading evidence…
246+4.617.09#5/7Loading evidence…
189+5.188.010#2/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−3behind Pendle, #2
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 74–78 and ranks #3–#4
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Term Finance’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
What happens at maturity 8 → 10 on its ladder · passes Pendle+280#3 → #2
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Pendle+279#3 → #2
The price of leaving early 6 → 9 on its ladder · passes Pendle+380#3 → #1
What happens at maturity 8 → 7 on its ladder · Exponent Yield Exchange passes it−174#3 → #4
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it 4 → 3 on its ladder · Exponent Yield Exchange passes it−174#3 → #4
The price of leaving early 6 → 5 on its ladder · Exponent Yield Exchange passes it−174#3 → #4
Smallest climb: what happens at maturity 8 → 10 passes Pendle, #2.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses — 9/10, category best 10/10
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What happens at maturity — 8/10 against a category best of 10/10
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it — 4/10 against a category best of 6/10
- The price of leaving early — 6/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- Term Finance is small and shrinking in absolute terms, and it is a professional venue, not a retail one. DefiLlama read 2026-09-28: about $5.41m across three product lines (Lend $3,763,805; Vaults $1,647,101; Parity $1,781), down from $22.14m on 2026-08-12 (Vaults $10,468,736; Parity $6,111,570; Lend $5,559,465). Only Lend is the fixed-rate repo product; on 2026-08-12 it was $5.6m, of which $5.55m was Ethereum; Arbitrum was $4,718, Plasma $479, Base $54, Avalanche $20. BNB carries no repo deployment at all — DefiLlama's adapter says so in a comment: "bsc has no repo/auction deployments (vaults-only chain)". So of the six chains listed in August, ONE had a fixed-rate repo market that mattered; the developer docs have since added a MegaETH deployment (release 2.1.3). The real caution is exit, not solvency. On 2026-09-28 (mainnet subgraph block 26,077,472) Terminal 1 had 4 open orders, all offering repo tokens and none bidding for them; only three fills have ever sold a repo token, and the venue's last fill was on 2026-08-21. On 2026-08-12, seventy-five of the venue's 97 fills were synthetic primary-mint flow. A lender should assume the position is held to maturity. Two cautions sometimes raised about it do not hold. There is no audit coverage gap: Sigma Prime published a consolidated assessment in May 2026 covering release 2.1.0 — the live version — plus a May 2024 review of 0.9.0, and Certora formally verified the protocol from Dec 1 2023 to Mar 23 2024. And there is no missing roles documentation: developers.term.finance publishes an Access Controls page naming every role's Gnosis Safe address per chain, an Upgradeability page, and a 24-hour Zodiac Delay Modifier timelock with invalidator controls on the upgrade path. docs.term.finance alone suggests otherwise, because its audit table is stale. The redemption ratio has never moved — one distinct value, 1e18, across all 806 non-delisted mainnet repos — but it is not immutable: the repo token is a UUPS proxy (implementation 0x76e7bdbd5e86f1be88ac65c44b772ae299ea6320 on 2026-09-28) that the DEVOPS_ROLE Safe can upgrade after its 24-hour delay, and the admin Safe can pause burning. The unchanged ratio shows the power has not been used, not that it is absent.
Competitive position
Where Term Finance leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 714.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#3 / 716.0 of 30 · best 17.6
Friction#1 / 72.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 73.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 78.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Term Finance leads
- What happens at maturity#3 / 7
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it#2 / 7
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses#2 / 7
Where it trails
- The price of leaving early#5 / 7
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Exponent Yield Exchange#4 of 7 · score 75 · 1.0 point behind
Term Finance leads on
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9 vs 6
Exponent Yield Exchange leads on
- The price of leaving early8 vs 6
Largest single reason Term Finance is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Exponent Yield Exchange has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Pendle#2 of 7 · score 79 · 3.0 points ahead
Term Finance leads on
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it4 vs 3
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9 vs 7
Pendle leads on
- What happens at maturity10 vs 8
- The price of leaving early8 vs 6
Largest single reason Pendle is ahead: published criteria (+3.1 display points).Scenario cost: Pendle has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Exactly Protocol#1 of 7 · score 80 · 4.0 points ahead
Term Finance leads on
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses9 vs 7
Exactly Protocol leads on
- What happens at maturity9 vs 8
- The price of leaving early9 vs 6
Largest single reason Exactly Protocol is ahead: published criteria (+4.2 display points).Scenario cost: Exactly Protocol has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 76 · gap 4.0Why Exactly Protocol ranks above Term Finance
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 4.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisExactly ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight16.017.6−4.2, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisExactly ProtocolPoints
What happens at maturity · w3289−1.02, worse
The price of leaving early · w2469−2.30, worse
Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses · w1897+1.15, better
Net7680−4.0
Your scenario
Term Finance is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 7 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
7 of 7 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #3 to #4 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
What happens at maturitystrength 8 · weight 32Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change itstrength 4 · weight 26Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.The price of leaving earlystrength 6 · weight 24Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy missesstrength 9 · weight 18Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Control failure (Term Finance 4/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it · 26%
- Insolvency failure (Term Finance 9/10): the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.Scored by Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses · 18%
- Exit failure: you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by What happens at maturity · 32% (Term Finance 8/10)Scored by The price of leaving early · 24% (Term Finance 6/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Term Finance FAQ (https://
docs .term .finance /protocol /faq), re-fetched 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200), unchanged since 2026-08-12: "Generally speaking, lenders are not subject to any protocol fees. Borrowers are subject to two fees: (i) a servicing fee that is quoted on an annualized basis and is applied to the amount borrowed and (ii) liquidated damages to the extent their position is liquidated due to a decline in collateral value below the maintenance margin requirements or failure to repay upon maturity within the repayment window." Servicing Fee page (https:// docs .term .finance /protocol /fees-and-penalties /servicing-fee, same date): "Borrowers are charged a loan servicing fee, typically ranging from 0.30%-0.50% per annum applied to the purchase price received in auction."; worked example on the same page: "Servicing Fee = 0.5% per annum", "Payable up-front by the borrower (no fees to lenders)", "Servicing Fee = 38.88... USDC = 100,000 USDC * 0.005 * 28 / 360"; and the incidence caveat "the economic burden of the fee will fall on both borrowers and lenders". Live markets do not match the published range: every one of the 40 unmatured, non-delisted Ethereum repos in Term's mainnet subgraph (block 26,077,471) carries servicingFee 0, and servicingFee() returns 0 by eth_call on three of their servicers at block 26,077,488; zero-fee repos first appear with April 2026 maturities (124 of 806 non-delisted repos; 152 carry 0.25% and 530 carry 0.5%). Liquidated Damages page (https:// docs .term .finance /protocol /fees-and-penalties /liquidated-damages, same date): "Borrowers in default are subject to liquidated damages typically set at 8% of any debt covered in liquidation." Liquidation page (https:// docs .term .finance /protocol /term-repos /defaults /liquidation, same date), worked example: "If liquidated damages are set at 8.0% and the protocol seize share at 2.8% then a liquidation transaction that seeks to repay $100,000 of a borrower's repurchase debt would seize $108,000 of collateral, with $105,200 worth of collateral going to the liquidator and $2,800 going to the protocol." Blue Sheets FAQ (https:// docs .term .finance /periphery /blue-sheets-simple-earn /faq, same date): "Published rates are transparent and final (set at 0.25% below auction rates), with users responsible only for network gas fees." Terminal 1, the order-market layer behind Term V2, publishes no rate of its own; its Fees, slippage & buffers page lists "Term protocol fees", venue fees, swap costs and a flash-loan premium and says "Terminal 1 surfaces fees where it can, but the canonical source of truth is always the onchain execution and the underlying venue’s rules."Term Finance — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDTerm Finance — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, Arbitrum, Avalanche, Base, BNB Chain, Plasma, MegaETH
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Term Finance's Terms of Use (docs.term.finance/legal/terms-of-use, read 28 September 2026) state: "AT THIS TIME THE COMPANY DOES NOT PERMIT ACCESS TO THE INTERFACE FROM THE FOLLOWING JURISDICTIONS: MYANMAR (BURMA), BELARUS, CHINA, COTE D'IVOIRE (IVORY COAST), CUBA, CRIMEA AND SEVASTOPOL, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ERITREA, IRAN, IRAQ, LIBYA, MALI, NICARAGUA, DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA (NORTH KOREA), RUSSIA, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, YEMEN, AND ZIMBABWE, as well as any country or region that is subject to comprehensive country-wide or region-wide economic sanctions by the United States of America." The same terms add "You agree not to use a VPN or any other software to hide or modify your IP address." The restriction binds the interface; the repo contracts are on-chain.
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Term Finance: where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
10 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 76, #3 of 7. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 15 October 2026
2026.10.10The live-data rule names the researched market measurements a criterion reads- changed The live-data rule names a second kind of figure a score reads: a researched, dated market measurement a criterion's ladder is built on, read again on the 45-day review. /methodology/live-data lists the 14 criteria that read one; no score, rank or order changes.
- changed A saved decision is checked again on the answers the reader saved. The drift check had merged a priority suggested by the market (price swings, gas) into those answers, so a market reading could move a saved decision's #1; the published ranking never read it.
- added On every build a test reads every criterion's published ladder: one that names a market quantity or a market-data source must be declared, and every scored row of a declared criterion must carry the source and the date its figure was read.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt fixed_rate_yield:term_finance:2026.10.18:a04e0c0443cf
Are you Term Finance? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.