Page 34 874 F.3d 787, *; 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 20596, fl; Bankr. L. Rep. (CCH) P83,176; 64 Bankr. Ct. Dec. 216 deferred cash payments) whose total 'value, as of the effective date of the plan, . . . is not less than the allowed amount of such claim." 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii). The question became, as here, how to calculate the interest on the deferred payments such that the creditor would receive the full value of its claim. No single interest-calculation method secured a majority vote on the Court, r799J resulting in a plurality opinion endorsing the "formula" method. [HN7] The "formula" approach endorsed by the Till plurality instructs the bankruptcy court to begin with a largely risk-free interest rate, specifically, the "national prime rate . . . which reflects the financial market's estimate of the amount a commercial bank should charge a creditworthy commercial borrower to compensate for the opportunity costs of the loan, the risk of inflation, and the relatively slight risk ["23] of default." 541 U.S. at 479. The bankruptcy court should then hold a hearing to determine a proper plan-specific risk adjustment to that prime rate "at which the debtor and any creditors may present evidence." Id. Using this approach, "courts have generally approved adjustments [above the prime rate] of 1% to 3%." Id. at 480.. 8 Here. the bankruptcy court applied risk adjustments of 2.0% and 2.75%. which it added to the Treasury rate of 2.1% to arrive at interest rates of 4.1% and 4.85%. respectively. 2014 Sankt LEXIS 3926. 2014 WL 4436335. at '32. Debtors assert in their briefing that the Treasury rate dropped by approximately 0.2% between the confirmation date and the plan's effective date. which thereby further lowered their notes' interest rate. 15-1682 8r. of Appellee at 11 n.3. The Till plurality arrived at the "formula" rate after rejecting a number of alternative methods relied on by the lower courts. Significantly, it rejected methods relying on p