Active RainDevMMFund-01

[MrAli]

So, the NonKYC.io AMM/Liquidity pool works great, but it primarily designed for individuals to provide liquidity. When PIVX Treasury funds are involved, @Jeffrey typically manages the funds. What you are proposing, is using it with a mix of your personal funds and Treasury funds. This is the first time this has been suggested, and while we appreciate the offer to match funds, TRUST is still an issue.

You stated; "The entire value generated from the DAO's capital stays with the DAO."

How so? If the proposal is voted down, or you decide to not do it anymore, do you then give the DAO's capital to @Jeffrey to then manage?

Just saying; "stays with the DAO" still doesn't answer the question. WHERE DO THE FUNDS GO?

To put things into clear perspective: 150,000 PIVX does not even cover 5 days of our daily infrastructure and operating expenses.

You know our scale, and you know very well we are not here chasing breadcrumbs or pocket change. We stepped up with substantial private capital, our own USDT on NonKYC, and active liquidity support on MEXC simply because we wanted to see real market depth for PIVX.

What is truly disappointing is that creating a petty public interrogation over a routine liquidity mechanism has now invited uninformed cynicism and baseless insinuations from others claiming we want "extra fees for our trouble."

Let’s be unequivocal:

1. We provided our own USDT.
2. The DAO provided the PIVX.
3. When the position concludes, we withdraw our own USDT, and 100% of the remaining PIVX goes straight back to the DAO treasury. Not a single PIVX goes into our pockets.

We are serious operators deploying real capital across multiple exchanges. Let’s elevate the conversation and act in the true interest of PIVX.

 

[Gerrald]

To put things into clear perspective: 150,000 PIVX does not even cover 5 days of our daily infrastructure and operating expenses.

You know our scale, and you know very well we are not here chasing breadcrumbs or pocket change. We stepped up with substantial private capital, our own USDT on NonKYC, and active liquidity support on MEXC simply because we wanted to see real market depth for PIVX.

What is truly disappointing is that creating a petty public interrogation over a routine liquidity mechanism has now invited uninformed cynicism and baseless insinuations from others claiming we want "extra fees for our trouble."

Let’s be unequivocal:

1. We provided our own USDT.
2. The DAO provided the PIVX.
3. When the position concludes, we withdraw our own USDT, and 100% of the remaining PIVX goes straight back to the DAO treasury. Not a single PIVX goes into our pockets.

We are serious operators deploying real capital across multiple exchanges. Let’s elevate the conversation and act in the true interest of PIVX.

Infrastructure? Your asking to use coins to put in an exchange. You have no costs for this proposal.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Re: "100% of the remaining PIVX goes straight back to the DAO treasury."

That's a great concept, but there is no address to deposit back to the Treasury. Therefore, it must be held by a person.

So, let me rephrase the question;

Which person gets to control the remaining PIVX once you decide to not continue the proposal anymore, or it is voted down?

 

[MrAli]

Infrastructure? Your asking to use coins to put in an exchange. You have no costs for this proposal.

How can you say "there are no costs"?

A liquidity pool requires two sides to exist:
The network provides the PIVX, and WE provide the USDT out of our own private pocket.

You cannot provide liquidity with PIVX alone. Who matches the PIVX with thousands of dollars of real USDT? We do.

That means our own hard-earned capital (USDT) is locked up, bearing the market risk and impermanent loss, while we don't charge the DAO a single penny of fee or salary.

We are literally matching the DAO’s capital 1:1 with our own money to create real order-book depth for PIVX users. Calling that "no costs" makes zero financial sense.

 

[Gerrald]

How can you say "there are no costs"?

A liquidity pool requires two sides to exist:
The network provides the PIVX, and WE provide the USDT out of our own private pocket.

You cannot provide liquidity with PIVX alone. Who matches the PIVX with thousands of dollars of real USDT? We do.

That means our own hard-earned capital (USDT) is locked up, bearing the market risk and impermanent loss, while we don't charge the DAO a single penny of fee or salary.

We are literally matching the DAO’s capital 1:1 with our own money to create real order-book depth for PIVX users. Calling that "no costs" makes zero financial sense.

Pretty certain that is not how it works...I dont have time to argue

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Still no answer. I have asked 5 times.

Answering the question the first time it was asked, was an opportunity to build trust. Instead, you have avoided answering the question FIVE TIMES which gives me serious concern.

It is not a large sum of value at this point. But, anything can happen in just a few months. However, it is the principle that concerns me the most.

Further, Treasury Funds for Market Making, in my opinion, should be managed in an official capacity by @Jeffrey as he is doxx'd on the exchanges etc., and has extensive experience with managing Market Making service providers, and using AMM/Liquidity pools.

I will be voting NO on this proposal. I don't trust you at all, especially given recent private group conversations.

Good luck.

 

[MrAli]

So, the NonKYC.io AMM/Liquidity pool works great, but it primarily designed for individuals to provide liquidity. When PIVX Treasury funds are involved, @Jeffrey typically manages the funds. What you are proposing, is using it with a mix of your personal funds and Treasury funds. This is the first time this has been suggested, and while we appreciate the offer to match funds, TRUST is still an issue.

You stated; "The entire value generated from the DAO's capital stays with the DAO."

How so? If the proposal is voted down, or you decide to not do it anymore, do you then give the DAO's capital to @Jeffrey to then manage?

Just saying; "stays with the DAO" still doesn't answer the question. WHERE DO THE FUNDS GO?

Let’s look directly at the real on-chain data from the NonKYC AMM pool screenshot that I shared, which you unfortunately dismissed without reviewing:

Here are the exact numbers of our active position:

• Original Deposit: 100,000 PIVX + $1,486.30 USDT (PIVX price: $0.01486)
• Current Pool Balance: 80,784.09 PIVX + $1,839.83 USDT (PIVX price: $0.02277)

1. Before you claim "USDT increased": Understand how AMMs work​

Do not make the mistake of looking at the +$353 USDT increase and assuming it is "profit." In an AMM, USDT only increased because traders deposited USDT to buy 19,216 PIVX out of the pool as the price rose.

That is why Impermanent Loss (IL) exists:

• If I had simply held my 100K PIVX and $1,486 USDT in a private wallet (HODL): My portfolio would be worth $3,763.76 USD today.
• Current value inside the LP pool: $3,679.65 USD.
• Net result: Even with trading fees, I am at a NET LOSS of -$73.86 USD purely for providing this liquidity to the market instead of holding.

2. Why asking for "exactly 150K PIVX back" makes zero financial sense:​

Because 19,216 PIVX was bought by the market, the pool literally only holds 80,784 PIVX right now. If I had naively promised: "Yes, exactly 100K (or 150K) PIVX will be returned," where would the missing 19,216 PIVX come from? Should I pull it out of thin air? Demanding to "ignore re-balancing" in an AMM proves a complete misunderstanding of decentralized liquidity.

3. Principal Withdrawal & DAO Capital:​

Let’s be 100% unequivocal: When the cycle concludes, we only withdraw our own original entry capital (USDT). We do not take a single cent of DAO capital. 100% of the entire remaining position and PIVX balance goes directly to @Jeffrey or the designated Core multi-sig.

A final recommendation:​

I strongly encourage you to thoroughly research how AMM pools, dynamic rebalancing, and Impermanent Loss actually function before posting. When you repeatedly ask fundamentally uneducated questions and ignore the photographic data right in front of you, you do nothing but poison the well and confuse community members who are trying to understand the facts.

We deployed real capital, absorbed real market risk, and asked for $0 in fees. The numbers and data speak for themselves.

 

[MrAli]

Still no answer. I have asked 5 times.

Answering the question the first time it was asked, was an opportunity to build trust. Instead, you have avoided answering the question FIVE TIMES which gives me serious concern.

It is not a large sum of value at this point. But, anything can happen in just a few months. However, it is the principle that concerns me the most.

Further, Treasury Funds for Market Making, in my opinion, should be managed in an official capacity by @Jeffrey as he is doxx'd on the exchanges etc., and has extensive experience with managing Market Making service providers, and using AMM/Liquidity pools.

I will be voting NO on this proposal. I don't trust you at all, especially given recent private group conversations.

Good luck.

To answer your question directly, clearly, and without hesitation: YES.

If this proposal ends, is not renewed, or if the DAO at any point decides to discontinue it, the entire pro-rata share of the DAO's capital—both the residual PIVX and the accumulated USDT from the AMM pool—will be returned directly to @Jeffrey or whatever official PIVX Treasury multisig address the DAO designates. Because I match the funds 1:1 with my personal capital, the DAO unconditionally owns exactly 50% of the LP position. There is zero ambiguity about custody.

---

1. Who Stepped Up When PIVX Needed Liquidity?
Let’s not forget why we are having this conversation: PIVX was facing severe liquidity shortages across exchanges, and calls were repeatedly made for liquidity solutions. We stepped up. We didn’t just create the NonKYC AMM pool—our liquidity orders are still actively sitting on MEXC right now, supporting the PIVX orderbook with our own hard capital.

2. Trust is a Two-Way Street
You state that "TRUST is still an issue" over a 50,000 PIVX monthly matching proposal (~$1,100).
Consider the reality: We trusted PIVX enough to invest millions of PIVX into this ecosystem, operate massive infrastructure, support exchange depth on MEXC, and match funds dollar-for-dollar—yet you question the trustworthiness of one of the largest active capital providers and supporters of this network?
If an investor who commits substantial personal capital, takes 100% of the market risk, and charges zero management fees cannot be trusted to match liquidity, who exactly can?

---

3. On-Chain Verification: You Voted NO 48 Hours Before Asking Any Questions
You stated on September 18 that your questions were:
"an opportunity to build trust before voting."

However, anyone running the standard daemon command:
pivx-cli getbudgetvotes MrAliMMFund01
can verify the immutable cryptographic record on the blockchain. Your cluster of nodes had already cast and broadcast their NO votes on September 16 at 19:01 UTC—a full 48 hours before you posted your first question on this forum:

[Immutable Blockchain Consensus Evidence]

• Masternode ID: 2e49e18ba03a17d5a06dfcd09fa7bcdb070d87191a14dbcc49972d6598903a99-0
  Timestamp: 2026-09-16 19:01:52 UTC
  Vote Hash: 39e325d76aef144e8c148264cdd0b48a4ad2ad84838cf2245d3d3d58333d80df
  Vote Cast: NO
• Masternode ID: 7af7f9e24298b26a24fccc7891b3a5ca14e698183d087749ad3ae12b03ecf238-1
  Timestamp: 2026-09-16 19:35:49 UTC
  Vote Hash: 3c8a6e56a67c069f3f5351f650a313f0484cb7d772c0c5a258e54c11132310b2
  Vote Cast: NO
• Masternode ID: eccc002523e403563b767424225fd83a940400ab7c8439d2afac7ba139c5c2d9-1
  Timestamp: 2026-09-16 19:40:49 UTC
  Vote Hash: 10ebc25e283473b0f23247fa6f14c6609c64b217c14cf720ce4f7505f9ba6ca4
  Vote Cast: NO
• Masternode ID: fff71c54f8a1198aabe6d2bfcb4c973935a1555d45e3a3a7b61b9273eb8fc17b-0
  Timestamp: 2026-09-16 19:44:27 UTC
  Vote Hash: 4c74d57041aac4b7b36bfb6b33c9c05b423bf0f4fcda159f400fa2c600e9717b
  Vote Cast: NO

Furthermore, as you personally acknowledged in the community group, this cluster of nodes belongs to you. Immediately following that conversation in the group, the remainder of your nodes were broadcast as NO votes, bringing your total to over 230 NO votes.

If necessary, I am fully prepared to upload the complete CSV list of all your masternode IDs, payout addresses, and cryptographic vote signatures right here in this thread for full public transparency.

Your decision was pre-judged, executed on-chain, and admitted to before the forum thread was even opened for discussion.

---

Despite that, I am responding with complete transparency and good faith, because my commitment is to PIVX, its traders, and its market liquidity.

I look forward to coordinating directly with @Jeffrey on the return address protocols and transparent reporting.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

MASTERNODE OWNERS PLEASE READ!!!


@MrAli I don't know why you imply I need to understand how this works. I already know. But, for making things simple, I stated the ASSUMPTION noted below. I even restated that assumption. You missed it both times.

"Ignoring price changes, re-balancing and fees, at the end of 3 months, it is at $3K USDT of your funds and 150K PIV from the Treasury."

Now, back to the point at hand. You have finally stated that;

"both the residual PIVX and the accumulated USDT from the AMM pool—will be returned directly to @Jeffrey or whatever official PIVX Treasury multisig address the DAO designates."

The 1st part clearly states @Jeffrey but unfortunately the 2nd part defines whoever submitted the future proposal, which could be anyone. So, we STILL don't have an answer.

Here is where I am going with this logic. The person the Community trusts is @Jeffrey . You have already stated you will give the balance to Jeffrey once the proposal fails, or ends.

So, this begs the question; Why not just give the funds to Jeffrey now? Then EVERYONE is happy.

Now, let's get to your more serious points;

You are implying those MNs are mine. You do not know that. Regardless, my comment was explaining how YOU can build trust. YOU are the NEW person. I have been here 10+ years building trust. Plus, we had already had conversations and I had all the information I needed. You've since added more support to that decision.

Re: " Immediately following that conversation in the group, the remainder of your nodes were broadcast as NO votes, bringing your total to over 230 NO votes."

Nope. That wasn't me. I spread my votes out, although I did vote NO.

Re: "If necessary, I am fully prepared to upload the complete CSV list of all your masternode IDs, payout addresses, and cryptographic vote signatures right here in this thread for full public transparency."

You have no way to know which MNs are mine and which are not. As such, at best, this would be MISINFORMATION. At worst, it is BLACKMAIL. The truth is; YOU DO NOT KNOW. If you want to build trust, stick with the truth. Otherwise, you are supporting my decision to NOT trust you.

Re: "Your decision was pre-judged, executed on-chain, and admitted to before the forum thread was even opened for discussion."

Again, you don't know which are my votes, and your 'pre-judged' timing is moot. Even if true, I am allowed to base my trust on prior interactions with you. Yes, votes are executed on-chain. That's how it works. ALL votes are executed on-chain. Duh.

 

[MrAli]

MASTERNODE OWNERS PLEASE READ!!!


@MrAli I don't know why you imply I need to understand how this works. I already know. But, for making things simple, I stated the ASSUMPTION noted below. I even restated that assumption. You missed it both times.

"Ignoring price changes, re-balancing and fees, at the end of 3 months, it is at $3K USDT of your funds and 150K PIV from the Treasury."

Now, back to the point at hand. You have finally stated that;

"both the residual PIVX and the accumulated USDT from the AMM pool—will be returned directly to @Jeffrey or whatever official PIVX Treasury multisig address the DAO designates."

The 1st part clearly states @Jeffrey but unfortunately the 2nd part defines whoever submitted the future proposal, which could be anyone. So, we STILL don't have an answer.

Here is where I am going with this logic. The person the Community trusts is @Jeffrey . You have already stated you will give the balance to Jeffrey once the proposal fails, or ends.

So, this begs the question; Why not just give the funds to Jeffrey now? Then EVERYONE is happy.

Now, let's get to your more serious points;

You are implying those MNs are mine. You do not know that. Regardless, my comment was explaining how YOU can build trust. YOU are the NEW person. I have been here 10+ years building trust. Plus, we had already had conversations and I had all the information I needed. You've since added more support to that decision.

Re: " Immediately following that conversation in the group, the remainder of your nodes were broadcast as NO votes, bringing your total to over 230 NO votes."

Nope. That wasn't me. I spread my votes out, although I did vote NO.

Re: "If necessary, I am fully prepared to upload the complete CSV list of all your masternode IDs, payout addresses, and cryptographic vote signatures right here in this thread for full public transparency."

You have no way to know which MNs are mine and which are not. As such, at best, this would be MISINFORMATION. At worst, it is BLACKMAIL. The truth is; YOU DO NOT KNOW. If you want to build trust, stick with the truth. Otherwise, you are supporting my decision to NOT trust you.

Re: "Your decision was pre-judged, executed on-chain, and admitted to before the forum thread was even opened for discussion."

Again, you don't know which are my votes, and your 'pre-judged' timing is moot. Even if true, I am allowed to base my trust on prior interactions with you. Yes, votes are executed on-chain. That's how it works. ALL votes are executed on-chain. Duh.

Thank you for confirming your position so candidly. Your response exposes the exact contradiction at the heart of this discussion:

1. "Why not just give the funds to Jeffrey?":
You literally stated: "The person the Community trusts is @Jeffrey... Why not just give the funds to Jeffrey now? Then EVERYONE is happy."
PIVX is an open, decentralized DAO. It is NOT a private corporation where all community initiatives and treasury resources must be handed over to a single individual. The idea that community proposals should simply surrender their funds to Jeffrey completely contradicts the core principles of decentralization.

2. The 120,400 PIVX Inactive Balance vs Jeffrey's "No Liquidity" Claim:
You claim Jeffrey is the only trusted custodian for liquidity funds. But let's look at the verifiable on-chain facts:
- Exactly 15 days ago (Sep 6), Jeffrey received 120,400 PIVX under PIVXMMFund11 (Address: DHQHLfFdyLBY25bKLprn1mJxakyPbdmNq3) specifically for MEXC liquidity.
- Public on-chain data confirms: Total Sent = 0.00 PIVX.
- The entire 120,400 PIVX has been sitting completely idle in that address for 15 days, with zero PIVX deployed to MEXC or any market maker.

Yet, in BusinessDev14 (Post #6), Jeffrey told the community:
"Major price drops pretty much wiped out most of our liquidity... it’s likely we cannot maintain mm after this. This is why I’ve asked community to take part in AMM on CoinEx and NonKYC."

How can Business Development claim the treasury has no liquidity left and beg the community to fund AMM on NonKYC, while 120,400 PIVX of treasury funds sits completely unspent and idle in Jeffrey's private address?!
Why would the community hand MORE funds to an address that hasn't deployed the 120,400 PIVX it already received?

3. Real Trust is Earned Through Transparency:
We are committing 50,000 PIVX of our OWN capital alongside the DAO's capital at 0% fees, with full public tracking on NonKYC.
Instead of demanding that community funds be funneled into a single private account, we should be asking why existing treasury allocations are sitting dormant while community members are actively building real market depth.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Answers:

1. Correct. But only to people the Community trusts. They don't trust you.

2. This is answered by @Jeffrey here: https://forum.pivx.org/threads/pivxmmfund11.3015/#post-8353
Short answer, the funds were collected for MEXC. Jeffrey must honor that. But, MEXC shit down deposits. They only opened for deposits a few hours ago. So, now he is waiting for the 3rd party MM team to provide an invoice.

3. Duplicate question, already answered above.