Provider at a glance
- Category
- Fixed-Rate Yield
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- ts.finance
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 70 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
TermMax
Fixed-rate lending AMM
Fixed-Rate Yield
#7 Overall
Ranked #7 of 7 fixed-rate yield in the published ranking
70
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is TermMax right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it6/10, the category best
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses10/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- What happens at maturity6/10 here; Exponent Yield Exchange scores 8
- The price of leaving early2/10 here; Exponent Yield Exchange scores 8
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 TermMax cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is TermMax?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to TermMax
Compare all 4- 4Exponent Yield Exchange5 points above · stronger on early exit cost (8 against 2)75
- 5Loopscale2 points above · stronger on early exit cost (6 against 2)72
- 6Spectra V21 point above · stronger on early exit cost (7 against 2)71
For your setup
Find out if TermMax fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where TermMax 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 TermMax ranks #7
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (18.4 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 2 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
326+6.148.010#6/7Loading evidence…
266+4.994.06#1/7Loading evidence…
242+1.547.09#7/7Loading evidence…
1810+5.768.010#1/7Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−1behind Spectra V2, #6
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 68–72 and ranks #6–#7
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 TermMax’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 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Spectra V2+172#7 → #6
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it 6 → 7 on its ladder · passes Spectra V2+172#7 → #6
The price of leaving early 2 → 3 on its ladder · passes Spectra V2+172#7 → #6
Smallest climb: what happens at maturity 6 → 7 passes Spectra V2, #6.
Strengths
2 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it — 6/10, the category best
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses — 10/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
2 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- What happens at maturity — 6/10 against a category best of 10/10
- The price of leaving early — 2/10 against a category best of 9/10
Record watch-outs
- TermMax scores at the top of the category on who owes you, and tied for last on what happens the day it ends (6/10, level with Spectra V2). Nothing it publishes tells an FT holder what happens if they hold past maturity and do nothing. The sharper version of that finding, which the prior draft missed: TermMax has diagnosed the maturity cliff explicitly and shipped a one-click Rollover for it (https://docs.ts.finance/resources/milestones-and-roadmap) — "allowing borrowers to roll positions to a later-maturity TermMax market or directly to Morpho's variable-rate market... on the borrowing side" — with rolloverGt live in the deployed router ABI and no FT-side equivalent anywhere. The lender's honest answer is still "your capital sits idle until you claim it, indefinitely, with no deadline", derived from _checkDeadline having no upper bound. TermMax never says it. Its clearest maturity documentation belongs to a different product line: the Alpha Market (Dual Investment) has a full "Asset Withdrawal & Settlement" page at https://docs.ts.finance/protocol-mechanisms/alpha-market/asset-withdrawal-and-settlement with an exercise table and an "After Maturity: Settlement & Withdrawal" section; the fixed-rate FT product has none. Scale and quality of that scale. DefiLlama TVL was $32,086,084 on 2026-08-13 against $30,508,805 on 2025-08-12 — roughly flat over twelve months, while Pendle fell 85.8% ($8.41bn → $1.19bn) over the same window; Pendle is still ~37x its size. Concentration was extreme in August: $30,410,020 of the $32.09m sat on Ethereum, and two RLUSD/USPC markets held $20.85m of FT face between them. On 2026-09-28 the RLUSD/USPC@25OCT2026 market alone still had 20,736,155.97 FT outstanding, but it is disabled in TermMax's market config and the sell-FT aggregator answers "No market config found" for it. DefiLlama's "borrowed" is FT face outstanding, confirmed on two chains (Ethereum-borrowed $22,071,157 against an on-chain sum of $22,076,196; Base-borrowed $162.85 against $162.93). That also explains DefiLlama's standing alert (warningBanners in https://api.llama.fi/protocol/termmax, re-read 2026-08-13), level "alert", until 2026-08-17 — "This protocol includes unproductive positions that may contribute to inflated metrics. Be safe." Headline TVL counts vault deposits earning base yield; on 2026-08-13 only ~$22.08m of $32.09m was matched fixed-rate lending, and on Base $1,153,504 of TVL supported $162.93 of FT with 5 of 6 markets at zero; on 2026-09-28 the market config listed no enabled market on Base, Arbitrum, Berachain or BSquared. TermMax's own numbers run well ahead of that. The roadmap (https://docs.ts.finance/resources/milestones-and-roadmap) claims "Its total TVL has surpassed the $100M milestone" and "2026/5: $100M TVL", against a DefiLlama all-time high of $40,683,088 (2025-10-29); the 09 Mar 2026 blog, https://blog.ts.finance/termmax-x-morpho-bringing-fixed-rate-infrastructure-to-the-morpho-ecosystem/, claims "$49.18M TVL" where DefiLlama shows $32,041,038 that day. One documentation defect hurts reproducibility badly: the contract-addresses section is stale. Its 132 market pages cover only Ethereum, Arbitrum and BNB — no Base, Berachain or BSquared — and the newest market listed matures 26SEP2025, while on 2026-09-28 the six enabled markets (four on Ethereum, two on BNB Chain) had all opened on 2026-09-25, and the sell-FT aggregator returned no orders for any of them.
Competitive position
Where TermMax 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#7 / 713.8 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 TermMax leads
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it#1 / 7
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses#1 / 7
Where it trails
- What happens at maturity#6 / 7
- The price of leaving early#7 / 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.
Spectra V2#6 of 7 · score 71 · 1.0 point ahead
TermMax leads on
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it6 vs 3
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses10 vs 8
Spectra V2 leads on
- The price of leaving early7 vs 2
Largest single reason Spectra V2 is ahead: published criteria (+0.5 display points).Scenario cost: Spectra V2 has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Loopscale#5 of 7 · score 72 · 2.0 points ahead
TermMax leads on
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it6 vs 3
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses10 vs 9
Loopscale leads on
- What happens at maturity7 vs 6
- The price of leaving early6 vs 2
Largest single reason Loopscale is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Loopscale has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Exponent Yield Exchange#4 of 7 · score 75 · 5.0 points ahead
TermMax leads on
- Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it6 vs 4
- Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses10 vs 6
Exponent Yield Exchange leads on
- What happens at maturity8 vs 6
- The price of leaving early8 vs 2
Largest single reason Exponent Yield Exchange is ahead: published criteria (+5.2 display points).Scenario cost: Exponent Yield Exchange has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
80 vs 70 · gap 10.0Why Exactly Protocol ranks above TermMax
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 10.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisExactly ProtocolGap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight13.817.6−9.9, 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 · w3269−3.07, worse
Is the rate actually fixed, and who can change it · w2664+1.66, better
The price of leaving early · w2429−5.38, worse
Who owes you the fixed leg if the strategy misses · w18107+1.73, better
Net7080−10.0
Your scenario
TermMax 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 #6 to #7 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 6 · 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 6 · 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 2 · 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 10 · 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 (TermMax 6/10): 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 (TermMax 10/10): 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% (TermMax 6/10)Scored by The price of leaving early · 24% (TermMax 2/10)
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
- From "Transaction Fees" (https://
docs .ts .finance /protocol-mechanisms /transaction-fees), re-fetched 28 September 2026 (HTTP 200) and unchanged since 2026-08-13: "Lending transaction fee rate = APR × Lending Fee Rate × (days to maturity/365)" / "Lending transaction fee = lending transaction fee rate × lend amount" / "Currently, the Lending Fee Rate is 2%. This rate is determined by the TermMax protocol." Worked example on the same page: "Lending Fee Rate = 10% × 2% × (365/365) = 0.2%" and "Fee = 0.2% × 1000 = 2 in unit of FT". Borrowing side: "Borrowing transaction fee rate = [GT Minting Reference Rate × GT Minting Fee Rate + matched borrow rate × Borrowing Fee Rate] × (days to maturity/365)"; "The Borrowing Fee Rate is 3%"; "Stablecoins: 6% (Subject to prevailing market conditions from time to time)"; "Non-Stablecoins: 3%"; "GT Minting Fee Rate: 10%". Vault depositors (https:// docs .ts .finance /protocol-mechanisms /depositor, same date): "Protocol Fee: Set by the protocol fee parameter and paid to TermMax. This is currently set at 2%." and "Both fees apply only to the passive yield generated by idle assets, not to your deposited principal." Live config (api.termmax.ts.finance/market/config/list, read 28 September 2026): only six markets are enabled — four on Ethereum (USDC/WBTC and USDC/WETH, maturing 18DEC2026 and 19MAR2027) and two on BNB Chain (USDT/WBNB, same maturities), all opened 25 September 2026; Arbitrum, Base, Berachain and BSquared return none. All six carry lendTakerFeeRatio 2000000, lendMakerFeeRatio 2000000, borrowTakerFeeRatio 3000000, borrowMakerFeeRatio 3000000, mintGtFeeRatio 10000000 and redeemFeeRatio 0 on a 1e8 base — the published rates. The GT Minting Reference Rate reads issueFtFeeRef 6000000 on the four Ethereum markets (the published stablecoin rate) but 8000000 (eight per cent) on both BNB Chain markets, a value the page does not publish. NOT PUBLISHED: any fee for SELLING FT before maturity — the page covers lending, borrowing and leverage only.TermMax — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDTermMax — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum, BNB Chain
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with TermMax: 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 70, #7 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:termmax:2026.10.18:a04e0c0443cf
Are you TermMax? 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.