Active PIVXMMFund11

[MrAli]

@KYMAVR Thank you for this constructive response and for drafting the V1 Reporting Template. This is precisely the kind of practical governance standard PIVX needs.

First, I want to clarify an important point: I have not cast a single NO vote against the market-making proposals, nor have I sought to defund our liquidity gateway.My nodes have not blocked this cycle. From day one, my position has been strictly about governance and transparency, not obstruction.

A simple, standardized report like the one you just proposed is all I have ever asked for. It does not require complex legal disclosures or breaching NDAs; it is simply basic accounting: what was received, what was paid to the vendor, and what remains deployed as working capital.

Unfortunately, instead of receiving a simple, straightforward answer, I was met with hostility, defensiveness, and personal attacks simply for asking where community funds are allocated. In any professional financial environment, asking for a balance sheet is standard diligence, not an attack.

I welcome your proposed template wholeheartedly. I am not here to litigate the past or derail momentum—I am here to ensure that as PIVX scales and the market rotates into privacy, new serious capital entering this ecosystem finds a transparent, mature, and accountable DAO they can trust.

If Jeffrey and the team commit to adopting this turnkey template and providing this clear breakdown, we are completely aligned. Let’s move forward together with transparency.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Unfortunately, instead of receiving a simple, straightforward answer, I was met with hostility, defensiveness, and personal attacks simply for asking where community funds are allocated. In any professional financial environment, asking for a balance sheet is standard diligence, not an attack.

Correct. I am not sure if it translates well, but we have a saying; "People respond in kind." That's what happened.

Example; You attacked @Jeffrey 's reputation related to the 15 days the funds were not deployed for liquidity to MEXC.

You could have said something like; "Hey! Why haven't the MEXC funds for Liquidity been deployed yet? Did I miss something?"

But, that's not the approach you took. You went into attack mode. Then, @Jeffrey gave you a perfect reason, which you could easily verify externally. Instead, you ignored that answer THREE TIMES and continued the attack. "People respond in kind."

Let me be clear; I want to see liquidity grow. I want to see detailed proposals and regular reports on those proposals. This applies to all proposals.

But, TRUST is the most important thing here. People might not always perform at the level we want. That might be because the effort required is too much for a person, which can be resolved by adding resources, or they lack skills, which can be resolved with training, direction, or tools being provided. But once TRUST is broken, it can be near impossible to recover from.

@KYMAVR has provided an excellent example of adding resources with the offer; "I would be more than happy to help draft a simple, standardized reporting template for the MM funds next cycle to take the administrative load off the core team."

However, the words, methods and style you use @MrAli , is attacking the TRUST that @Jeffrey has built up over 10+ years. No one is perfect. We can all improve. But, please RESPECT the team. Everyone has sacrificed a lot and still is. PIVX is dead if these people leave, and PIVX simply CAN'T GROW if new people considering joining, see such unjustified disrespect.

Please do better.

 

[MrAli]

Correct. I am not sure if it translates well, but we have a saying; "People respond in kind." That's what happened.

Example; You attacked @Jeffrey 's reputation related to the 15 days the funds were not deployed for liquidity to MEXC.

You could have said something like; "Hey! Why haven't the MEXC funds for Liquidity been deployed yet? Did I miss something?"

But, that's not the approach you took. You went into attack mode. Then, @Jeffrey gave you a perfect reason, which you could easily verify externally. Instead, you ignored that answer THREE TIMES and continued the attack. "People respond in kind."

Let me be clear; I want to see liquidity grow. I want to see detailed proposals and regular reports on those proposals. This applies to all proposals.

But, TRUST is the most important thing here. People might not always perform at the level we want. That might be because the effort required is too much for a person, which can be resolved by adding resources, or they lack skills, which can be resolved with training, direction, or tools being provided. But once TRUST is broken, it can be near impossible to recover from.

@KYMAVR has provided an excellent example of adding resources with the offer; "I would be more than happy to help draft a simple, standardized reporting template for the MM funds next cycle to take the administrative load off the core team."

However, the words, methods and style you use @MrAli , is attacking the TRUST that @Jeffrey has built up over 10+ years. No one is perfect. We can all improve. But, please RESPECT the team. Everyone has sacrificed a lot and still is. PIVX is dead if these people leave, and PIVX simply CAN'T GROW if new people considering joining, see such unjustified disrespect.

Please do better.

@Eric_Stanek You continuously attempt to derail a serious financial discussion into emotional drama and personal deflection.

Did I ever call Jeffrey a thief? Absolutely not. In fact, if I doubted his character or had malicious intent, why did my nodes vote YES with full power on his proposal in the first place? Please stop trying to gaslight the DAO and manipulate community sentiment.

The core issue here is purely about financial transparency. Jeffrey is the author of this proposal. Yet every time legitimate questions are raised regarding the accounting, you immediately jump in front to deflect and speak on his behalf. Is this Jeffrey’s proposal, or is it yours?

With all due respect to Jeffrey’s past contributions: if this standard of transparency is not established, and if the DAO’s working capital, deployed NAV, and vendor expenses are not verified with concrete documentation, I will not be voting YES for his proposals in the upcoming cycle. The DAO has a fundamental right to know exactly how much treasury capital exists, where it is held, and how it is being spent.

Over the past few weeks, we have conducted an extensive on-chain audit across the entire PIVX network. We have analyzed historical treasury payouts, wallet flows, and voting patterns, and we have identified very peculiar anomalies. My questions are not emotional attacks—they are grounded strictly in verifiable blockchain data.

Let Jeffrey answer for his own proposal, let the team adopt the standardized reporting template, and let the facts speak for themselves.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Re: "Jeffrey is the author of this proposal. Yet every time legitimate questions are raised regarding the accounting, you immediately jump in front to deflect and speak on his behalf. Is this Jeffrey’s proposal, or is it yours?"

Obviously it is Jeffrey's. But it doesn't matter. Everyone is free to comment.

Some background for you about a weakness in the Governance System;

There is a history of ignorant irrational people exerting influence on proposals. The proposal owners are reluctant to push-back, because that just feeds the emotional and irrational behavior of those individuals, who vote in retaliation instead of following facts and truth. Since I never submit proposals, I don't have to worry about that. That is ONE reason I comment on proposals.

Another reason is that other MNOs rely on such push-back to see what is actually going on. Then they can make an informed decision on how to vote. In the past, it has been clear that controversial discussions like this cause MNOs who otherwise do not vote, to make their voices heard.

Yet another reason is that ANYONE can comment! This is a Community Governed project. A Community Member doesn't need to have a Masternode to comment. In fact, the more people who are NOT MNOs that comment and ask questions, the better!

Given the above 3 points - NO I will not stop commenting. I will call you out every time you spin words to take a shot at someone, every time you ignore questions asked of you, and every time you ignore answers given to you.

Re: "Let Jeffrey answer for his own proposal, ..."

I have not stopped Jeffrey from commenting. I can't stop him, even if I wanted to. Please don't imply the opposite. Jeffrey has no trouble pointing out where I am wrong, and I am fine being called out for my mistakes.

One mistake I made, was to imply that the Market maker invoice was protected by an NDA. Jeffrey corrected me on that. But, let's think about this logically.

1. There are a small set of Market Maker service providers that will work with PIVX.
2. A certain % of them have their 'formula' perfected, and want those details kept private.
3. The balance of them will compete on price alone, and not performance.
4. We want to work those companies that offer the best value, (Item 2 above) but transparency requirements will prevent that.
5. Since we never make a deal with them, (Item 2 above) the results can never be known.

This is why your requirement; "verified with concrete documentation" isn't always attainable.

It seems reasonable that we can get to the point where the MM total cost is made public, but their service is absolutely going to have many differences from their competition. Those differences will be spelled out somewhere. Maybe line items on the invoice, or buried in another document. Or, maybe just verbal. Should all that material be captured, documented, voice recorded, screen shots saved etc .etc. Why? Where does the 'verification' stop?

They are a service, not a commodity. By looking at cost only, and following a strict template report format, we will be judging purely based on price, not value and performance. That's not good for PIVX.

I have more to say, but I am out of time for now. I will come back to this later.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Re:

Over the past few weeks, we have conducted an extensive on-chain audit across the entire PIVX network. We have analyzed historical treasury payouts, wallet flows, and voting patterns, and we have identified very peculiar anomalies. My questions are not emotional attacks—they are grounded strictly in verifiable blockchain data.

Please share that information for Transparency.

 

[MrAli]

Re: "Jeffrey is the author of this proposal. Yet every time legitimate questions are raised regarding the accounting, you immediately jump in front to deflect and speak on his behalf. Is this Jeffrey’s proposal, or is it yours?"

Obviously it is Jeffrey's. But it doesn't matter. Everyone is free to comment.

Some background for you about a weakness in the Governance System;

There is a history of ignorant irrational people exerting influence on proposals. The proposal owners are reluctant to push-back, because that just feeds the emotional and irrational behavior of those individuals, who vote in retaliation instead of following facts and truth. Since I never submit proposals, I don't have to worry about that. That is ONE reason I comment on proposals.

Another reason is that other MNOs rely on such push-back to see what is actually going on. Then they can make an informed decision on how to vote. In the past, it has been clear that controversial discussions like this cause MNOs who otherwise do not vote, to make their voices heard.

Yet another reason is that ANYONE can comment! This is a Community Governed project. A Community Member doesn't need to have a Masternode to comment. In fact, the more people who are NOT MNOs that comment and ask questions, the better!

Given the above 3 points - NO I will not stop commenting. I will call you out every time you spin words to take a shot at someone, every time you ignore questions asked of you, and every time you ignore answers given to you.

Re: "Let Jeffrey answer for his own proposal, ..."

I have not stopped Jeffrey from commenting. I can't stop him, even if I wanted to. Please don't imply the opposite. Jeffrey has no trouble pointing out where I am wrong, and I am fine being called out for my mistakes.

One mistake I made, was to imply that the Market maker invoice was protected by an NDA. Jeffrey corrected me on that. But, let's think about this logically.

1. There are a small set of Market Maker service providers that will work with PIVX.
2. A certain % of them have their 'formula' perfected, and want those details kept private.
3. The balance of them will compete on price alone, and not performance.
4. We want to work those companies that offer the best value, (Item 2 above) but transparency requirements will prevent that.
5. Since we never make a deal with them, (Item 2 above) the results can never be known.

This is why your requirement; "verified with concrete documentation" isn't always attainable.

It seems reasonable that we can get to the point where the MM total cost is made public, but their service is absolutely going to have many differences from their competition. Those differences will be spelled out somewhere. Maybe line items on the invoice, or buried in another document. Or, maybe just verbal. Should all that material be captured, documented, voice recorded, screen shots saved etc .etc. Why? Where does the 'verification' stop?

They are a service, not a commodity. By looking at cost only, and following a strict template report format, we will be judging purely based on price, not value and performance. That's not good for PIVX.

I have more to say, but I am out of time for now. I will come back to this later.

First you claimed the invoice was strictly protected by an NDA. Then Jeffrey himself stepped in and exposed that as untrue. Now you pivot to an absurd excuse about "proprietary formulas" and attempt to mock basic accounting by asking if voice recordings and screenshots are needed.

Stop misleading and gaslighting the DAO.

Nobody is asking for a vendor's proprietary trading algorithms. We are asking for basic, standard accounting: verifiable receipts, proof of deployed treasury capital, and transparent vendor expenditures. In every professional organization on the planet, when treasury funds are requested, invoices and receipts are mandatory. To frame basic financial accountability as "anti-value" is an insult to the intelligence of this entire community.

For years, community members watched treasury capital drain while proposals were pushed through without real pushback or accountability. The capital of thousands of dedicated supporters was diluted and eroded, while legitimate questions were dismissed as "ignorant and irrational." Those days are over.

You openly admitted that you speak and coordinate on these matters. According to the official hierarchy, you serve as an Advisor. That means you bear direct responsibility for advising the DAO and overseeing how its funds are deployed—not erecting smoke screens and running defense to obstruct financial transparency.

Contradictions, retracted claims, and excuses do not build trust. Until full, concrete, and standardized documentation is publicly provided to verify every dollar of deployed capital and vendor expense, I will be changing my votes to NO on these proposals.

The DAO treasury belongs to the entire community, not a select few. It is time for complete accountability.

 

[Jeffrey]

I have constantly shared liquidity updates and more, the invoices for previous activities were under nda. This one is not

Once again @MrAli you are weaponising your masternodes to downvote proposals merely because your proposal is not passing. You are targeting people that keep the project afloat and are therefore killing your own investment

I provide answers to all questions always and you can dm me your questions to on telegram which you have not

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Actually, Jeffrey did state that NDAs are involved. Just not covering the actual invoice. Try to keep up please.

I am not misleading anyone. No gaslighting either. The applicable term is 'projection', and that's what you are doing.

Great! You just admitted that you will vote only on price. PIVX just became a government department, awarding contracts to the lowest bidder. We all know how well that works.

I assure you. There has been a LOT of push back over the years.

Re: "According to the official hierarchy, you serve as an Advisor. That means you bear direct responsibility for advising the DAO and overseeing how its funds are deployed—not erecting smoke screens and running defense to obstruct financial transparency."

Not true at all. PIVX is a Meritocracy, and it has no hierarchy. No one reports to me. I report to no one. I do not get paid. I do not have set hours. I have no set responsibilities. I volunteer. The title was self-chosen. There was no 'hire' for that role. There was no 'vote' to approve it for me. I am not a member of the Core Team. Anyone can be an advisor.

I am very logical. I stick to facts and rational thought. Happy to explain things nicely, but will escalate to use VOLUME and SHAME to force you to 'HEAR' me if needed.

The bigger issue is that you come into PIVX, thinking you understand everything. You don't. We are typically happy to share knowledge - but don't expect us to be so willing when you are disrespectful, refuse to answer basic questions, and ignore answers we provide. We are busy. We don't have time to waste.

 

[MrAli]

Dear PIVX Community,

Over the past few days, many of you have watched the intense debates surrounding our proposal, MrAliMMFund01, and the questions raised regarding treasury accounting. Today, as you can verify on-chain, our own masternodes have cast hundreds of NO votes on our own proposal, officially turning it RED and defunding it.

Some of you may wonder: Why submit a proposal only to vote NO on it yourself?

We owe the community complete transparency on why this was done, what was uncovered, and what it means for the future of PIVX.

---

1. The Litmus Test: Why the Proposal Was Submitted​

For years, the PIVX DAO has suffered from a lack of true financial accountability. Questions about market maker expenditures, deployed working capital, and vendor receipts were routinely dismissed, ignored, or labeled as "hostile and irrational." A small circle treated treasury funding as an entitlement while the capital of thousands of community supporters steadily diluted.

When we submitted MrAliMMFund01, it was designed first and foremost as a litmus test for DAO integrity:

• Does this governance system evaluate proposals based on merit, value, and community benefit?
• Or does an entrenched voting cartel operate behind the scenes to protect insiders while gatekeeping any outside oversight?

The reaction gave the entire community its answer.

---

2. What Was Exposed​

The response from the entrenched interests was immediate panic and deflection:

1. Automated Cartel Voting: Within hours of our post, coordinated voting clusters across centralized hosting providers (over 230 nodes on a single host alone) were mobilized in serial order to mass-downvote the proposal. We tracked, analyzed, and mapped every single one of these votes on-chain.
2. Fabricated Excuses & Retracted Claims: Rather than addressing straightforward financial questions, we were told invoices were protected by strict NDAs—a claim that was later admitted to be untrue. When that failed, basic accounting standards were mocked as "unnecessary."
3. Double Standards: Outside contributors are demanded to provide impossible metrics, while legacy proposals receive hundreds of thousands of PIV without verifiable documentation.

---

3. Why We Voted NO on Ourselves​

Actions speak louder than forum posts.

The critics claimed we were "competing for treasury funds" or "attacking the DAO for money." We are not here to take a single PIV from this treasury. We do not need DAO funding.

By voting NO on our own proposal and forfeiting 150,000 PIV, we have removed any shadow of doubt. We refuse to participate in a system where capital is extracted without accountability. Unlike those who fight desperately for every treasury payout while dodging receipts, we hold ourselves to the highest standard of integrity.

---

4. The Future of PIVX Governance​

The era of backroom control is over. The DAO belongs to the entire community:

• We support real builders: When grassroots initiatives provide clear, transparent deliverables—such as the PIVX Spanish Outreach proposal—our nodes voted with full conviction (400+ YES votes) to ensure they are funded.
• We demand accountability: Any proposal that refuses to adopt standardized financial reporting and provide concrete documentation will face decisive opposition.

PIVX was founded on the principles of decentralization, privacy, and community sovereignty. We are here to ensure those principles are protected.

Let the data speak, let transparency prevail, and let the DAO decide.

Sincerely,

 

[MrAli]

Thank you @Jeffrey for uploading the invoice, and thank you @KYMAVR (Lydia) for recognizing the importance of verifiable accounting.

Now that we have the first official invoice on record, we can look at the historical data objectively. Over the past 12 cycles, the PIVX DAO treasury has disbursed a total of 1,050,277 PIVX across 12 PIVXMMFund proposals, representing approximately $99,300 USD at the time of each superblock payout:

1. PIVXMMFund01 (Oct 2025 | Block 5097603): 70,650 PIVX ($0.1328) = $9,378
2. PIVXMMFund02 (Nov 2025 | Block 5140801): 70,650 PIVX ($0.2882) = $20,361
3. PIVXMMFund03 (Dec 2025 | Block 5184010): 50,000 PIVX ($0.1695) = $8,473
4. PIVXMMFund04 (Jan 2026 | Block 5227209): 40,717 PIVX ($0.1305) = $5,314
5. PIVXMMFund05 (Feb 2026 | Block 5270412): 132,170 PIVX ($0.1258) = $16,622
6. PIVXMMFund06 (Mar 2026 | Block 5313607): 110,900 PIVX ($0.0966) = $10,714
7. PIVXMMFund07 (Apr 2026 | Block 5356800): 100,800 PIVX ($0.0875) = $8,818
8. PIVXMMFund08 (May 2026 | Block 5443200): 100,800 PIVX ($0.0762) = $7,682
9. PIVXMMFund09 (Jun 2026 | Block 5486409): 70,800 PIVX ($0.0566) = $4,008
10. PIVXMMFundadd (Jul 2026 | Block 5486407): 60,000 PIVX ($0.0417) = $2,499
11. PIVXMMFund10 (Aug 2026 | Block 5529601): 122,390 PIVX ($0.0284) = $3,471
12. PIVXMMFund11 (Sep 2026 | Block 5572805): 120,400 PIVX ($0.0162) = $1,956
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL: 1,050,277 PIVX | Cumulative Value at Payout: ~$99,300 USD

This brings up two critical, constructive questions for the DAO:

1. Vendor Fees vs. Missing Periods:
The uploaded invoice covers 3.68 months (Jul 10 - Oct 31, 2026) for $10,373 USD (~$2,800/month). We appreciate seeing this document. However, what about the remaining 8 to 9 cycles? Were similar fee structures in place, and can those invoices also be archived for DAO records?

2. Trading Capital as a DAO Asset:
At ~$2,800/month, vendor retainer fees account for roughly $33,600 over a 12-month period. That leaves approximately $65,000+ USD worth of disbursed value intended as trading liquidity.
Market-making liquidity is not a sunk expense; it is a treasury reserve asset belonging to the PIVX DAO.

To ensure complete transparency moving forward:
- What is the current Net Asset Value (NAV) of the DAO’s market-making accounts (in PIVX and USDT)?
- What balances are currently held in the trading portfolios managed by Enflux?

This is standard financial reporting for any decentralized treasury. Masternode operators funding these proposals are simply asking to understand the health and reserves of the DAO’s liquidity. Clear numbers build true confidence.

@Jeffrey

 

[Gerrald]

Dear PIVX Community,

Over the past few days, many of you have watched the intense debates surrounding our proposal, MrAliMMFund01, and the questions raised regarding treasury accounting. Today, as you can verify on-chain, our own masternodes have cast hundreds of NO votes on our own proposal, officially turning it RED and defunding it.

Some of you may wonder: Why submit a proposal only to vote NO on it yourself?

We owe the community complete transparency on why this was done, what was uncovered, and what it means for the future of PIVX.

---

1. The Litmus Test: Why the Proposal Was Submitted​

For years, the PIVX DAO has suffered from a lack of true financial accountability. Questions about market maker expenditures, deployed working capital, and vendor receipts were routinely dismissed, ignored, or labeled as "hostile and irrational." A small circle treated treasury funding as an entitlement while the capital of thousands of community supporters steadily diluted.

When we submitted MrAliMMFund01, it was designed first and foremost as a litmus test for DAO integrity:

• Does this governance system evaluate proposals based on merit, value, and community benefit?
• Or does an entrenched voting cartel operate behind the scenes to protect insiders while gatekeeping any outside oversight?

The reaction gave the entire community its answer.

---

2. What Was Exposed​

The response from the entrenched interests was immediate panic and deflection:

1. Automated Cartel Voting: Within hours of our post, coordinated voting clusters across centralized hosting providers (over 230 nodes on a single host alone) were mobilized in serial order to mass-downvote the proposal. We tracked, analyzed, and mapped every single one of these votes on-chain.
2. Fabricated Excuses & Retracted Claims: Rather than addressing straightforward financial questions, we were told invoices were protected by strict NDAs—a claim that was later admitted to be untrue. When that failed, basic accounting standards were mocked as "unnecessary."
3. Double Standards: Outside contributors are demanded to provide impossible metrics, while legacy proposals receive hundreds of thousands of PIV without verifiable documentation.

---

3. Why We Voted NO on Ourselves​

Actions speak louder than forum posts.

The critics claimed we were "competing for treasury funds" or "attacking the DAO for money." We are not here to take a single PIV from this treasury. We do not need DAO funding.

By voting NO on our own proposal and forfeiting 150,000 PIV, we have removed any shadow of doubt. We refuse to participate in a system where capital is extracted without accountability. Unlike those who fight desperately for every treasury payout while dodging receipts, we hold ourselves to the highest standard of integrity.

---

4. The Future of PIVX Governance​

The era of backroom control is over. The DAO belongs to the entire community:

• We support real builders: When grassroots initiatives provide clear, transparent deliverables—such as the PIVX Spanish Outreach proposal—our nodes voted with full conviction (400+ YES votes) to ensure they are funded.
• We demand accountability: Any proposal that refuses to adopt standardized financial reporting and provide concrete documentation will face decisive opposition.

PIVX was founded on the principles of decentralization, privacy, and community sovereignty. We are here to ensure those principles are protected.

Let the data speak, let transparency prevail, and let the DAO decide.

Sincerely,

I honestly cant find a word wrong in that and I have been trying to push alot of what you have said for years but I dont control that much of a vote. My voicing on certain things may have changed some things but you/group have a huge mn vote but if you vote and I have always said the votes control pivx and wether you like it or not there needs to be some sort of hand over drafted. Say someone becomes social media manager and gets voted in by the dao, how do they get the keys? Will they be handed over? We all need to have clear discussions about this before you kamikaze the project

You voting @Jeffrey out with no backup, no clear plan and its only a couple of weeks out you will mess things up. He does a bloody lot and for hardly anything. He doesnt deserve that. If you want to earn trust with people lets do these discussions, pass jeffery and have a clear way forward that the community as a whole agrees with. Its a nice change from mine and Eric's discussions if you have noticed them in the forum.

This has to happen or pivx will fail.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

AFAIK, anyone who handles the Liquidity with exchanges, needs to pass extensive KYC.
Also note, that most exchanges require 3rd party Market Makers.
It will take time to build relationships with a new person.
Do you even know who they are @MrAli ?

Are you going to provide your passport and driver's license to the exchanges @MrAli ?
Are you going to spend hours and hours negotiating with them?

Because with you voting like this, NO ONE ELSE is going to want to do it.

So, you can basically kiss your investment good bye!

How is that protecting the investors? How is that holding yourselves to the highest standard of integrity?

Just more emotion and word spin. You are not demonstrating any logic or rational thought.

 

[Jeffrey]

I have posted about market making costs frequently. Before Enflux we used Armada. Keep in mind PIVX value has dropped drastically as well and MM fees have been removed from our liquidity as well. I mentioned the drastic drop in liquidity due to Binance and the sell offs that ate into our liquidity

I have just sent over the 120399 PIVX to our Market Makers address . TXID is 49e0326cc93ef53b0ebc3815101e5c1d06532f86a0c84c94f5ca56841934c4c3

 

[Jeffrey]

On top of that MM funds were also used to pay for an additional pair on the BTC section which also faced a massive downtrend after the delisting.
This balance needs to be updated once the new PIVX reflects. Ive asked Enflux as well

This value goes in line with current devaluations:

At current PIVX price (~$0.0181, per CoinGecko and MEXC — quotes vary by source since PIVX trades thin volume and cached page data can lag):


Total PIVX held across all 12 funds: 1,050,277 PIVX


Current total value: ≈ $19,010


Per-fund current values at $0.0181:

1. PIVXMMFund01: 70,650 PIVX = $1,279
2. PIVXMMFund02: 70,650 PIVX = $1,279
3. PIVXMMFund03: 50,000 PIVX = $905
4. PIVXMMFund04: 40,717 PIVX = $737
5. PIVXMMFund05: 132,170 PIVX = $2,392
6. PIVXMMFund06: 110,900 PIVX = $2,007
7. PIVXMMFund07: 100,800 PIVX = $1,824
8. PIVXMMFund08: 100,800 PIVX = $1,824
9. PIVXMMFund09: 70,800 PIVX = $1,281
10. PIVXMMFundadd: 60,000 PIVX = $1,086
11. PIVXMMFund10: 122,390 PIVX = $2,215
12. PIVXMMFund11: 120,400 PIVX = $2,179

Worth flagging: this portfolio was originally worth roughly $99,300 combined (summing your listed values), so at current prices it's down to about $19,000 .a ~81% drawdown, tracking PIVX's fall from $0.13-$0.29 back in the Oct 2025–Feb 2026 range down to under $0.02 now.



Enflux are now asking for 700K PIVX as buying pressure has skewed and we mostly have USDT now.

 

[Jeffrey]

Liquidity as you mentioned before is subject to massive liquidity.

@Liquid369 is part of the enflux group and can see and verify my work there.

 

[Liquid369]

I am in the Enflux group and can see the accounts, so let me put the numbers
together in one place.

How the fund works, since "how much is liquidity and how much is fees" keeps
being asked. Proposal PIVX is deposited into the MM accounts as a top up.
The monthly pair funding is then drawn from that same balance. Liquidity and
fees come out of one bucket and always have. That is what "covers liquidity,
fees, trading fees" means in the proposals. There is no separate retainer
account.

Current balance, which is the NAV question asked above and matches the image
Jeffrey posted: about $21.5k total, roughly $14.5k of it in USDT and the
rest in PIVX.

Costs. The invoice Jeffrey posted is $10,373 for 3.68 months, about $2,820 a
month, and that covers PIVX/USDT on MEXC. Smaller exchanges are handled at
$400 a month each. I do not have the current exchange list in front of me so
I am not going to guess at the total, Jeffrey can confirm it if it's still needed
after this.

On where the value went, the answer is in MrAli's own table. Look at the
price column across the cycles being audited:

Nov 2025   $0.2882
Dec 2025   $0.1695
Mar 2026   $0.0966
Jun 2026   $0.0566
Aug 2026   $0.0284
Sep 2026   $0.0162

That is a 94% decline over the window. Pull the yearly chart and the shape
is clear: a peak above 30 cents in late November, a secondary push in
January, then a continuous grind from 12 cents down to under 2. It is not
one event, it is steady sell pressure meeting a thin book for nine straight
months. The Binance delisting took a venue away and killed the BTC pair we
were funding in the middle of it.

Liquidity held in PIVX falls one for one with that line. Jeffrey has said
the injections were made above 15 cents. Capital put in at 15 cents is worth
about an eighth of that today.

Market making buys depth and spread. It does not buy immunity from a 94%
decline in the asset the book is denominated in. No market maker on earth
sells that.

For scale, because this is what gets lost in arguing about percentages:
PIVX total market cap is about $2.0M today. The MM book at $21.5k is
roughly 1% of the entire market cap of the asset. The 700k request is about
$13k, or 0.66% of market cap. Everything in this thread, all of it, is an
argument about whether to keep roughly one percent of the float behind the
order book.

Worth noting alongside that: daily volume is running near $500k against a
$2.0M cap, about 25% turnover. Whatever else is true, that book is
absorbing real volume. A microcap with no market making does not trade like
that.

So the "$65,000 of trading capital" is not sitting somewhere unaccounted
for. Fees were drawn from it monthly, the PIVX side fell 94%, and what
survived is mostly the USDT. That is the $21.5k.

Now the part nobody has run. Take the payout values MrAli posted and Jeffrey
agreed with, against that $2,820 monthly:

cycle        month      USD at payout   months of MEXC fee covered
MMFund05     Feb 2026        $16,622       5.90
MMFund06     Mar 2026        $10,714       3.80
MMFund07     Apr 2026         $8,818       3.13
MMFund08     May 2026         $7,682       2.73
MMFund09     Jun 2026         $4,008       1.42
MMFundadd    Jul 2026         $2,499       0.89
MMFund10     Aug 2026         $3,471       1.23
MMFund11     Sep 2026         $1,956       0.69

A full monthly cycle stopped covering a single month of market making in
July. This month's 120,400 PIVX was worth $1,956 at payout against a $2,820
fee. The cycles are no longer topping the account up. They are part paying a
bill, and the balance is absorbing the difference.

Runway on the current balance, before any new funding, is roughly seven
months for MEXC alone and less once the smaller exchanges are included. That
is the actual problem in this thread. Not that funds went missing, but that
at 1.6 cents a monthly cycle no longer pays for the service it was created
to buy.

The 700k request is that arithmetic surfacing. At current price it is about
$12,670, which takes the account back to roughly $34k. It is the first ask
in a year sized to what the service costs rather than to whatever budget was
left over, which is why the recent ones read as round numbers with generic
wording.

On reporting, and this is a fair criticism that I will not argue with.
Under Armada we published the detail in the proposals themselves. Go back
through them and it is there: the rate card, $2,000 per market per month,
the invoices, the liquidity comparisons, the account balances. That was the
standard and it was consistent.

Armada went out of business. Some of that team formed Enflux and took over
our market making, so it is largely the same people, but it is a new company
and it has been rebuilding its reporting and billing from scratch. That is
why the last several cycles have had less in them and why this invoice took
until now. It is not a decision to disclose less, it is a newer operation
catching up, and we are working on getting that information available more
easily rather than pulled together by hand every time someone asks. Just
remember all this information is also in prior proposals in the archives.

The problem lies in not taking in the whole picture and zooming in;
When in doubt zoom out. Perspectives are key; the data is there.

 

[MrAli]

I honestly cant find a word wrong in that and I have been trying to push alot of what you have said for years but I dont control that much of a vote. My voicing on certain things may have changed some things but you/group have a huge mn vote but if you vote and I have always said the votes control pivx and wether you like it or not there needs to be some sort of hand over drafted. Say someone becomes social media manager and gets voted in by the dao, how do they get the keys? Will they be handed over? We all need to have clear discussions about this before you kamikaze the project

You voting @Jeffrey out with no backup, no clear plan and its only a couple of weeks out you will mess things up. He does a bloody lot and for hardly anything. He doesnt deserve that. If you want to earn trust with people lets do these discussions, pass jeffery and have a clear way forward that the community as a whole agrees with. Its a nice change from mine and Eric's discussions if you have noticed them in the forum.

This has to happen or pivx will fail.

Hi @Gerrald,

I appreciate you speaking up openly. I want to address your thoughts directly so everyone understands that we do not speak into thin air. Every move we make is deliberate, backed by data, and rooted in a deep, long-term commitment to PIVX.

1. Real-Time On-Chain Intelligence

We are not guessing. Our infrastructure is integrated with custom AI-driven analytics that monitor network activity in real time. We see every mempool transaction, every wallet split, and every voting signature the second it broadcasts.

For instance, we observed clusters of dormant masternodes—many of which had not participated in governance for a very long time—suddenly mobilized in serial batches purely to downvote us. We tracked the coordinated maneuvers intended to marginalize and purge us just as other critical community voices were pushed out in the past. But that playbook will not work this time.

1. A 9-Year Commitment, Not Overnight Speculation

For years, the narrative has been weaponized to keep the community in fear: "If Person X leaves, if Person Y steps down, the project will collapse."

Do you think we are overnight speculators? We have been buying and accumulating PIVX for 9 years. We have stood by this project through thick and thin, weathering multi-million dollar drawdowns without abandoning it. The masternodes we recently brought online represent only a fraction of our total holdings.

We stayed silent for years while watching genuine, talented contributors propose brilliant initiatives only to be gatekept, rejected, and starved of funding by an entrenched group treating the treasury as a private entitlement. We are here to dismantle that cartel and return governance to meritocracy.

1. Accountability is Not a Courtesy—It is a Fiduciary Duty

When people draw regular compensation from community-funded treasury capital, providing clear receipts and answers is not an optional favor; it is an absolute fiduciary duty.

We raised straightforward financial questions. Those questions were read, yet met with radio silence, excuses, and deflections. Transparency is the fundamental right of every single token holder, large or small.

1. Transition is Natural: The Contrast with Core Developers

People should not live in fear of change. In any enduring decentralized project, contributors come and go. When one era ends, new and motivated talent steps forward.

Look at our Core Development team as the prime example: Why does nobody in the community attack or contest the developers? Why do @Liquid369, @Luke, and the dev team never face these legitimacy crises?

The answer is simple: Flawless transparency, structured deliverables, and deep professional integrity. Their proposals are clear, their work is on-chain, and they respect the DAO. It is our duty as node operators not only to fund them, but to actively commend, support, and thank them—which I personally do and will continue to do.

If other proposal owners adopted even half the transparency and humility of the dev team, PIVX governance would be in a far healthier place. We are not here to destroy; we are here to ensure that the standards of excellence set by our developers become the standard for the entire DAO.

 

[MrAli]

On top of that MM funds were also used to pay for an additional pair on the BTC section which also faced a massive downtrend after the delisting.
This balance needs to be updated once the new PIVX reflects. Ive asked Enflux as well



View attachment 3395

This value goes in line with current devaluations:

At current PIVX price (~$0.0181, per CoinGecko and MEXC — quotes vary by source since PIVX trades thin volume and cached page data can lag):


Total PIVX held across all 12 funds: 1,050,277 PIVX


Current total value: ≈ $19,010


Per-fund current values at $0.0181:

1. PIVXMMFund01: 70,650 PIVX = $1,279
2. PIVXMMFund02: 70,650 PIVX = $1,279
3. PIVXMMFund03: 50,000 PIVX = $905
4. PIVXMMFund04: 40,717 PIVX = $737
5. PIVXMMFund05: 132,170 PIVX = $2,392
6. PIVXMMFund06: 110,900 PIVX = $2,007
7. PIVXMMFund07: 100,800 PIVX = $1,824
8. PIVXMMFund08: 100,800 PIVX = $1,824
9. PIVXMMFund09: 70,800 PIVX = $1,281
10. PIVXMMFundadd: 60,000 PIVX = $1,086
11. PIVXMMFund10: 122,390 PIVX = $2,215
12. PIVXMMFund11: 120,400 PIVX = $2,179

Worth flagging: this portfolio was originally worth roughly $99,300 combined (summing your listed values), so at current prices it's down to about $19,000 .a ~81% drawdown, tracking PIVX's fall from $0.13-$0.29 back in the Oct 2025–Feb 2026 range down to under $0.02 now.



Enflux are now asking for 700K PIVX as buying pressure has skewed and we mostly have USDT now.

Hi @Jeffrey,

It took two days of relentless questioning and the decisive weight of hundreds of NO votes for you to finally sit down and post these numbers. Why did it have to come to that?

You are accountable to every single member of this community, whether someone holds 1 PIVX or 100,000 PIVX. When you receive treasury capital, providing clear reporting is not an optional favor; it is an obligation.

At the conclusion of every single proposal cycle, standard deliverables, ending balances, and metrics should be posted directly under the proposal thread as routine practice. That way, anyone can verify the results at any time, and none of this unnecessary friction would ever need to happen.

We all understand that capital depreciated during the wider market downturn. We experienced massive drawdowns on our own holdings during this drop, so nobody is denying market realities. The issue was never market volatility; the issue was the total absence of accountability and reporting.

These reports should have been shared willingly, transparently, and in good faith from day one, not dragged out under the pressure of masternode downvotes.

You opened my direct messages, read my questions, and chose not to respond. If this is how dismissively you treat a major stakeholder asking straightforward governance questions, how do you treat everyday community members when they seek answers?

If you point to being with this project for 10 years and expect respect for that tenure, remember that we have also been buying, investing in, and holding PIVX for 9 years through thick and thin. Respect in a decentralized community must always be mutual.

Transparency is the foundation of community trust. Let this be the standard moving forward: clear reporting under every cycle, open communication, and respect for all token holders.

 

[MrAli]

AFAIK, anyone who handles the Liquidity with exchanges, needs to pass extensive KYC.
Also note, that most exchanges require 3rd party Market Makers.
It will take time to build relationships with a new person.
Do you even know who they are @MrAli ?

Are you going to provide your passport and driver's license to the exchanges @MrAli ?
Are you going to spend hours and hours negotiating with them?

Because with you voting like this, NO ONE ELSE is going to want to do it.

So, you can basically kiss your investment good bye!

How is that protecting the investors? How is that holding yourselves to the highest standard of integrity?

Just more emotion and word spin. You are not demonstrating any logic or rational thought.

Do you realize how many talented contributors, developers, and community members you have systematically sidelined, silenced, and driven away from PIVX over the years with your voting cartel? I do not need to name names; the entire community remembers.

Your era of gatekeeping and intimidation is officially over. The network is returning to its true decentralized roots so the community can finally experience real, unhindered growth.

Anyone reading through your history on this forum can clearly see the pattern of deflections, gaslighting, and manufactured panic. The dynamic between you and Jeffrey has run for too long: you position yourself as the aggressive frontline shield, avoiding putting up proposals in your own name, while weaponizing concentrated voting power behind closed doors to downvote and eliminate anyone who refuses to submit to your control.

You talk about integrity, but anyone can audit the blockchain right now and observe the coordinated voting clusters broadcasting at scripted 5 to 20-minute intervals across identical IPv6 subnets hosted on 3 specific servers. Let us not pull back the curtain any further; I will preserve what little respect remains for your past tenure.

I also saw your heated remarks and threats in the Telegram groups. Fear-mongering about KYC, passports, and impending doom will no longer work on this community. Professional market makers and institutional partners work with registered corporate entities every single day; they do not require an entire decentralized network to be held hostage by a couple of individuals.

I will not waste my time trading emotional arguments with you. The community is wide awake, the masternodes have spoken, and the future of PIVX will be built on transparency, not fear.

 

[MrAli]

I am in the Enflux group and can see the accounts, so let me put the numbers
together in one place.

How the fund works, since "how much is liquidity and how much is fees" keeps
being asked. Proposal PIVX is deposited into the MM accounts as a top up.
The monthly pair funding is then drawn from that same balance. Liquidity and
fees come out of one bucket and always have. That is what "covers liquidity,
fees, trading fees" means in the proposals. There is no separate retainer
account.

Current balance, which is the NAV question asked above and matches the image
Jeffrey posted: about $21.5k total, roughly $14.5k of it in USDT and the
rest in PIVX.

Costs. The invoice Jeffrey posted is $10,373 for 3.68 months, about $2,820 a
month, and that covers PIVX/USDT on MEXC. Smaller exchanges are handled at
$400 a month each. I do not have the current exchange list in front of me so
I am not going to guess at the total, Jeffrey can confirm it if it's still needed
after this.

On where the value went, the answer is in MrAli's own table. Look at the
price column across the cycles being audited:

Nov 2025   $0.2882
Dec 2025   $0.1695
Mar 2026   $0.0966
Jun 2026   $0.0566
Aug 2026   $0.0284
Sep 2026   $0.0162

That is a 94% decline over the window. Pull the yearly chart and the shape
is clear: a peak above 30 cents in late November, a secondary push in
January, then a continuous grind from 12 cents down to under 2. It is not
one event, it is steady sell pressure meeting a thin book for nine straight
months. The Binance delisting took a venue away and killed the BTC pair we
were funding in the middle of it.

Liquidity held in PIVX falls one for one with that line. Jeffrey has said
the injections were made above 15 cents. Capital put in at 15 cents is worth
about an eighth of that today.

Market making buys depth and spread. It does not buy immunity from a 94%
decline in the asset the book is denominated in. No market maker on earth
sells that.

For scale, because this is what gets lost in arguing about percentages:
PIVX total market cap is about $2.0M today. The MM book at $21.5k is
roughly 1% of the entire market cap of the asset. The 700k request is about
$13k, or 0.66% of market cap. Everything in this thread, all of it, is an
argument about whether to keep roughly one percent of the float behind the
order book.

Worth noting alongside that: daily volume is running near $500k against a
$2.0M cap, about 25% turnover. Whatever else is true, that book is
absorbing real volume. A microcap with no market making does not trade like
that.

So the "$65,000 of trading capital" is not sitting somewhere unaccounted
for. Fees were drawn from it monthly, the PIVX side fell 94%, and what
survived is mostly the USDT. That is the $21.5k.

Now the part nobody has run. Take the payout values MrAli posted and Jeffrey
agreed with, against that $2,820 monthly:

cycle        month      USD at payout   months of MEXC fee covered
MMFund05     Feb 2026        $16,622       5.90
MMFund06     Mar 2026        $10,714       3.80
MMFund07     Apr 2026         $8,818       3.13
MMFund08     May 2026         $7,682       2.73
MMFund09     Jun 2026         $4,008       1.42
MMFundadd    Jul 2026         $2,499       0.89
MMFund10     Aug 2026         $3,471       1.23
MMFund11     Sep 2026         $1,956       0.69

A full monthly cycle stopped covering a single month of market making in
July. This month's 120,400 PIVX was worth $1,956 at payout against a $2,820
fee. The cycles are no longer topping the account up. They are part paying a
bill, and the balance is absorbing the difference.

Runway on the current balance, before any new funding, is roughly seven
months for MEXC alone and less once the smaller exchanges are included. That
is the actual problem in this thread. Not that funds went missing, but that
at 1.6 cents a monthly cycle no longer pays for the service it was created
to buy.

The 700k request is that arithmetic surfacing. At current price it is about
$12,670, which takes the account back to roughly $34k. It is the first ask
in a year sized to what the service costs rather than to whatever budget was
left over, which is why the recent ones read as round numbers with generic
wording.

On reporting, and this is a fair criticism that I will not argue with.
Under Armada we published the detail in the proposals themselves. Go back
through them and it is there: the rate card, $2,000 per market per month,
the invoices, the liquidity comparisons, the account balances. That was the
standard and it was consistent.

Armada went out of business. Some of that team formed Enflux and took over
our market making, so it is largely the same people, but it is a new company
and it has been rebuilding its reporting and billing from scratch. That is
why the last several cycles have had less in them and why this invoice took
until now. It is not a decision to disclose less, it is a newer operation
catching up, and we are working on getting that information available more
easily rather than pulled together by hand every time someone asks. Just
remember all this information is also in prior proposals in the archives.

The problem lies in not taking in the whole picture and zooming in;
When in doubt zoom out. Perspectives are key; the data is there.

Hi @Liquid369,

Thank you for stepping in and bringing calm, clear, and objective data to this discussion.

I do not need to give any technical or financial lectures here. We know you know your job, and the entire community knows the level of dedication and competence you bring to PIVX.

The numbers you laid out make total sense, and we have always understood the impact of macro drawdowns on liquidity reserves. Our concern was never about questioning the realities of the market; all we ever asked for from the beginning was this exact level of straightforward transparency, clear communication, and mutual respect.

When information is shared openly like this rather than hidden behind deflections, there is no need for friction. When trusted builders like yourself are involved and proposals are backed by clear facts, you will always have our full respect and support.

Thank you for your honesty and for taking the time to put the real picture together for everyone.