Active MMFundingNov

[Liquid369]

Name: PIVXMMFund13
Term: 1 Cycle
Cycle Amnt: 145,275
Total Amnt: 145,275
Author: Liquid369
Receiver: Liquid369
Address: DGN1XVpAbvGRn9jXh4qngj787YVuj4v5aP
Created: 11-02-2026
Status: Active
Vote Hash: 61e86d5b4c68c9bdd531067db665987613191eb33d3c4211fa566460bb75ce70

PIVXMMFund13

This proposal continues the market-making program; the previous cycle is PIVXMMFund12. It asks for the remainder of this cycle's budget, to be deposited into the PIVX market-making account that Enflux runs on MEXC.

Who runs it

Enflux is the DAO's only market maker, and it works only on MEXC, the exchange where PIVX has its deepest order book. The swap and payment partners also draw their liquidity from MEXC: ChangeNOW, Changelly, ChangeHero, SwapSpace, Travala, NOWPayments, HoudiniSwap and others. Thin MEXC depth therefore means worse rates on every swap site that lists PIVX, not only on MEXC itself. Some of the team behind Armada, the previous market maker, formed Enflux after Armada closed. Enflux has run PIVX market making since PIVXMMFund07 (2026-04-29).

• Cost: the last invoice, posted 2026-09-22 in the PIVXMMFund11 thread, is 2,820 a month. Armada's last published rate was 2,000 per market, 3 markets), so Enflux costs less than half of that.
• One account: proposal PIVX goes into the market-making account. That single balance pays Enflux's fee and trading fees, and it holds the liquidity Enflux quotes.

Where the account stands

Last public reading, 2026-10-08: $25.3K total, $21.2K USDT, $4.04K PIVX
Buying pressure has left the book skewed toward USDT. Enflux needs PIVX to quote the sell side, so a PIVX top-up is what this account needs most. The target is three times the current MEXC depth, with the spread kept below 1%.

The number

Each superblock pays out 432,000 PIV. The proposals now passing take 280,050, which leaves 151,950. KyenoNov26 takes 6,675. This proposal takes the remaining 145,275 PIV, which includes 50 PIV reimbursing the submission fee. At 5,480: roughly two months of Enflux fees at the current rate, or about $5,400 more PIVX on the sell side. It comes out of one balance, so in practice it is part of each.

At current prices, a full budget cycle no longer covers much. Enflux has asked for an additional 700,000 PIVX to cover the new buying pressure (LOBD14, 2026-09-23). This proposal does not try to meet that. It puts what is left of this cycle where it does the most good.

Reporting

At the close of the cycle I will post the outbound txid from the proposal address into the market-making account, the invoice total for the period, and an updated Enflux balance.

Voting

GUI Wallet: DAO page → vote "yes" on PIVXMMFund13

Console:

mnbudgetvote many 61e86d5b4c68c9bdd531067db665987613191eb33d3c4211fa566460bb75ce70 yes

mnbudgetvote many 61e86d5b4c68c9bdd531067db665987613191eb33d3c4211fa566460bb75ce70 no

 

[Cryptosi]

Oh so this assumes WAMS and Jeffrey do not get passed?

Also does paying this MM guarantee that no delisting will occur? What is the contingency for if they delist PIVX anyway?

I asked Jeffrey both of these questions yesterday, but I'm asking them again as this is seemingly a new proposal from a new owner?

For context, I don't know much about MM to consider myself an expert, But I know that if the choice is between Jeffrey and WAMS or Marketmakers, I would rather have those guys and find decentralised solutions as we would of 8 years ago, if Zerocoin didnt fall over.
Thorchain/Maya exist now, we have other options than to pander to trad-fi. ESPECIALLY at the cost of these two guys. This is madness.

https://pivx.org/news/pivx-zdex-well-positioned-against-potential-privacy-coin-regulation-in-japan -- Lets take a trip down memory lane.

 

[Liquid369]

Oh so this assumes WAMS and Jeffrey do not get passed?

Also does paying this MM guarantee that no delisting will occur? What is the contingency for if they delist PIVX anyway?

I asked Jeffrey both of these questions yesterday, but I'm asking them again as this is seemingly a new proposal from a new owner?

For context, I don't know much about MM to consider myself an expert, But I know that if the choice is between Jeffrey and WAMS or Marketmakers, I would rather have those guys and find decentralised solutions as we would of 8 years ago, if Zerocoin didnt fall over.
Thorchain/Maya exist now, we have other options than to pander to trad-fi. ESPECIALLY at the cost of these two guys. This is madness.

https://pivx.org/news/pivx-zdex-well-positioned-against-potential-privacy-coin-regulation-in-japan -- Lets take a trip down memory lane.

Yes with downvoting this is the assumption they are not going to be passed.

Delisting guarantee? No, but we are atleast keeping it from occurring right now. The major focus here is if we lose MEXC, we lose the swap sites, piv cards, nowpayments etc.

The proposal isn't necessarily costing them right now, I have discussed this with them over taking the funds to enhance our market. This comes with their approval.

Reminder: The MM is 2000 USD a month itself, the rest would go to buy/sell side liquidity.

 

[MrAli]

You raised a very good point, dear @Liquid369 . There is no guarantee against delisting.
So let's look at it this way: we're paying an MM with our money, even though, from our perspective, they haven't really demonstrated that they know what they're doing. And at the end of the day, we're a privacy coin. Whenever they feel like it, they can delist us simply because we're focused on privacy.
There are two issues here: either we have to give up our privacy principles, or we need to find a solution that permanently addresses this problem.
In my opinion, we're just treating the symptoms by maintaining ±2% market depth. So why should we spend money on that?
I understand your point about the swap sites, PivCards, NowPayments, and all the other services. Let's assume MEXC delists us tomorrow. What's our solution then?
I'm not someone who likes putting a temporary bandage on a problem. I'd rather find a complete cure.

 

[Gerrald]

You raised a very good point, dear @Liquid369 . There is no guarantee against delisting.
So let's look at it this way: we're paying an MM with our money, even though, from our perspective, they haven't really demonstrated that they know what they're doing. And at the end of the day, we're a privacy coin. Whenever they feel like it, they can delist us simply because we're focused on privacy.
There are two issues here: either we have to give up our privacy principles, or we need to find a solution that permanently addresses this problem.
In my opinion, we're just treating the symptoms by maintaining ±2% market depth. So why should we spend money on that?
I understand your point about the swap sites, PivCards, NowPayments, and all the other services. Let's assume MEXC delists us tomorrow. What's our solution then?
I'm not someone who likes putting a temporary bandage on a problem. I'd rather find a complete cure.

We need the bandage to then solve this problem. If we lose swap sites it slows everything down. If theres no one to talk to them or is a slow switchover to the person speakkng to them we also lose either way. Stop destroying your investment even more or do you not care?

 

[Gerrald]

With regards the mm it does appear it fails in doing anything. Throwing money at it does not seem to be doing anything. Do they charge more than they actually add value? Until we dig deeper into this we need mexc working.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

Re:

they haven't really demonstrated that they know what they're doing.

With regards the mm it does appear it fails in doing anything

This is failed logic. For YEARS we have said that we need MORE liquidity. MUCH MUCH more! So, you are judging their performance on us NOT listening to them, or the entire crypto industry for that matter, and providing more liquidity. All this time we have been pleading with them to keep us listed even with minimal liquidity. On top of that, @Jeffrey has spent hours and hours every month, re-allocating MM funds where they were needed most. Imagine what happens when he finds work elsewhere and PIVX no longer has those relationships.

What will prove you wrong is what happens when we get de-listed from MEXC and our monthly Treasury drops to $2,000 USD per month in TOTAL for the ENTIRE Team and Infrastructure costs!

Also, if the MM proposal does not pass, I see zero reason to be contributing my funds to the liquidity on NonKYC.io, and neither does @Jeffrey so someone better be ready to step up on that or we will get de-listed their too.

Thorchain/Maya exist now, we have other options than to pander to trad-fi.

Thorchain and Maya require massive liquidity to work. Why on earth would you approve liquidity there, when you feel the much smaller amount on MEXC isn't worth it?

I feel like my point is going right over everyone's head. I absolutely am going to call out each of you on your failed logic with "I told you so!" when the price crashes hard again. Frankly, hurting PIVX so much, should cause you each such shame, you willingly leave.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

@Jeffrey created a swap site in just over an hour, leveraging AI.

I don't know why @Jeffrey , @WizardWam and myself bother spending time here. We should just keep building .... on something else.

 

[Liquid369]

You raised a very good point, dear @Liquid369 . There is no guarantee against delisting.
So let's look at it this way: we're paying an MM with our money, even though, from our perspective, they haven't really demonstrated that they know what they're doing. And at the end of the day, we're a privacy coin. Whenever they feel like it, they can delist us simply because we're focused on privacy.
There are two issues here: either we have to give up our privacy principles, or we need to find a solution that permanently addresses this problem.
In my opinion, we're just treating the symptoms by maintaining ±2% market depth. So why should we spend money on that?
I understand your point about the swap sites, PivCards, NowPayments, and all the other services. Let's assume MEXC delists us tomorrow. What's our solution then?
I'm not someone who likes putting a temporary bandage on a problem. I'd rather find a complete cure.

Permanently addressing the problem? Market making is something that is ongoing for nearly every project and is something needed to stay alive. Speculation is not helpful in the discussion, yes delisting is a possibility eventually for a privacy coin. That means we make plans for that contingency. It does not mean drop what we are doing now. Losing all the things weve worked on in the past few years just because some people think the Market Making is doing "nothing", it is literally supporting our market and a ton of services. Its simply not just MEXC because 20+ other services are integrated into that liquidity. We arent deciding to lose 1 thing by cutting these funds, we stand to lose everything in terms of gift cards, accessibility, and exchangability.

With regards the mm it does appear it fails in doing anything. Throwing money at it does not seem to be doing anything. Do they charge more than they actually add value? Until we dig deeper into this we need mexc working.

People buy and sell coins everyday, some are natural and actual people, some are the MM funds and some are other entities. The funds are there to keep us from wild price swings. In order to keep a listing on an exchange we need to keep a certain depth based on the volume. The depth is to protect wild price swings, because if a coin is moving more than -+10% often, that is a risk issue and makes an exchange put us into monitoring or delisting. These funds do a lot, while the service is costly with our current price, it has sustained a lot of trades and does what it can to protect our price if there isnt insane selling. The MM will not just throw all our funds to catch a falling knife. MM's run every chain/coins liquidity if its on a CEX, thats just the market.

Re:




This is failed logic. For YEARS we have said that we need MORE liquidity. MUCH MUCH more! So, you are judging their performance on us NOT listening to them, or the entire crypto industry for that matter, and providing more liquidity. All this time we have been pleading with them to keep us listed even with minimal liquidity. On top of that, @Jeffrey has spent hours and hours every month, re-allocating MM funds where they were needed most. Imagine what happens when he finds work elsewhere and PIVX no longer has those relationships.

What will prove you wrong is what happens when we get de-listed from MEXC and our monthly Treasury drops to $2,000 USD per month in TOTAL for the ENTIRE Team and Infrastructure costs!

Also, if the MM proposal does not pass, I see zero reason to be contributing my funds to the liquidity on NonKYC.io, and neither does @Jeffrey so someone better be ready to step up on that or we will get de-listed their too.



Thorchain and Maya require massive liquidity to work. Why on earth would you approve liquidity there, when you feel the much smaller amount on MEXC isn't worth it?

I feel like my point is going right over everyone's head. I absolutely am going to call out each of you on your failed logic with "I told you so!" when the price crashes hard again. Frankly, hurting PIVX so much, should cause you each such shame, you willingly leave.

Yes DEX's require an MM or a form of liquidity still. The difference there most are the x * y = k formula. This can be gamed in rebalancing, this can cause impermanent losses (basically you dont get everything back same as a CEX). The only benefit to the DEX's is a situation like NonKYC.io can pool liquidity from the community and users, unfortunately for us, we have very little. NonKYC liquidity is still bad even though people have the freedom to. Fund raising is not a small amount for any of this either for the DEX's. If we have funds to do both I would surely be willing to try but the other hand to that is, if we need some form of wrapped token? or bridge? I am against this because I dont want to be a custodian of any funds at large. If we do not need that, I will dedicate time to trying to make it happen.

The only retort to the DEX argument is, we dont cut off our nose to spite our face. Meaning? Have a plan and be working towards it before you decide to cut off your current lifeline.

Removing MM/MEXC is the final nail in the coffin for this project, if we dont have somewhere else to pipe everything through. Losing cards and swaps and all exchanges is literally saying we throw away the work of BD and I for the last 3 years. UNderstandbly its coming to the end of a bear market, we should see some upside soon, so just keep swimming.

Edit: side not to

Thorchain and Maya protocol. We do not move the needle for them just the same as many of these exchanges. We do not meet minimum volume and market cap requirements for them to want to support our chain. Dreams are nice but lets come to the reality we are currently faced with. Neither of those will host us currently in this form. Losing MEXC will only make us even less attractive to those DEX's mentioned.

 

[MrAli]

Permanently addressing the problem? Market making is something that is ongoing for nearly every project and is something needed to stay alive. Speculation is not helpful in the discussion, yes delisting is a possibility eventually for a privacy coin. That means we make plans for that contingency. It does not mean drop what we are doing now. Losing all the things weve worked on in the past few years just because some people think the Market Making is doing "nothing", it is literally supporting our market and a ton of services. Its simply not just MEXC because 20+ other services are integrated into that liquidity. We arent deciding to lose 1 thing by cutting these funds, we stand to lose everything in terms of gift cards, accessibility, and exchangability.

Liquid, based on our conversations, I'm comfortable trusting your judgment this time. I'll leave the vote open so the wider PIVX community can share their views and we can reach a collective decision.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

I'm wondering if moving forward, if it makes sense to divide Market Making communications into 2 parts; First, the summary numbers for current status/goals, and second, everything else like why Market Making and Liquidity is needed and why the specific provider, exchanges etc.

Because it is a LOT of information for people to digest, and then once they understand and no longer question why MM/Liquidity etc is needed, all they really need to see is the current status, which I feel is getting lost. For example some simple list like;

Date: Nov 04, 2026
PIVX Price: $0.04 USD
MM: Enflux (Sole provider)
Fees: $2,500 USD per month
Exchanges supported: MEXC (Sole exchange)
Liquidity USDT: $20,000
Liquidity PIVX: 125,000 ($5,000 USD)
Liquidity Total: $25,000
Target Liquidity Total: $200,000 USD
etc.

Note: Above numbers are example only.

This also means that moving forward, new proposals can just point people back to this one for explanations on why MM/Liquidity is needed.

Plus, it may be possible to automate pulling together some of the above numbers, and graphing them over time. Overlay the PIVX price, and people will see the correlation. Plus, it gives us a visual to know when to expand to new exchanges, without spreading our Liquidity too thin. That will help gather more support.

Thoughts?

 

[MrAli]

Reality Check: Current MEXC Order Book vs. Proposal Claims​

Looking at the live PIVX/USDT order book on MEXC right now (screenshots attached below), there is a massive discrepancy between what this proposal claims and what is actually happening on the exchange.

Here is the exact breakdown of the current MEXC order book numbers:

1. Bid-Ask Spread is Violating the <1% Target​

• Proposal Claim: "with the spread kept below 1%."
• Live MEXC Reality:
  • Best Bid (Buy): 0.042874 USDT
  • Best Ask (Sell): 0.043557 USDT
  • Current Spread: 1.59% (0.000683 USDT) — nearly 60% higher than the promised <1% threshold.

---

2. Buy-Side (Bid) Depth: Only $121.76 USDT Despite Claiming $21,200 USDT in the Account!​

• Proposal Claim: "Last public reading, 2026-10-08: $25.3K total, $21.2K USDT, $4.04K PIVX. Buying pressure has left the book skewed toward USDT."
• Live MEXC Reality (See Screenshot 1 - Buy Book):
  • Across the top 11 Bid levels—stretching from 0.042874 USDT all the way down to 0.038809 USDT (a -9.69% price dropfrom the last price of 0.042974)—the total cumulative buy support is:
    • Sum PIVX: 2,963.02 PIVX
    • Sum USDT: $121.76 USDT (121.763903 USDT at avg. price 0.041094)
  • The Question: If the Enflux market-making account is "skewed toward USDT" and sitting on $21,200 USDT, why is there only $121.76 USDT on the buy book across a nearly 10% price drop?
  • That is just 0.57% of the reported USDT balance (and much of that $121 is likely retail orders). Right now, a single market sell of just ~$122 would crash the PIVX price on MEXC by almost 10%!

[ATTACH SCREENSHOT 1 HERE - BUY BOOK (121.76 USDT)]

---

3. Sell-Side (Ask) Depth: Only $216.49 USDT Across 11 Levels​

• Proposal Claim: The account holds $4,040 in PIVX (approx. 94,000 PIVX at current prices) and needs another 145,275 PIV top-up to quote the sell side.
• Live MEXC Reality (See Screenshot 2 - Sell Book):
  • Across the top 11 Ask levels—from 0.043557 USDT up to 0.044628 USDT (+3.86%above the last price of 0.042970)—the total cumulative sell liquidity is:
    • Sum PIVX: 4,871.91 PIVX
    • Sum USDT: $216.49 USDT (216.486557 USDT at avg. price 0.044435)
  • This represents barely 5.3% of the $4,040 PIVX allegedly already in the account, mostly scattered in tiny $4 to $10 micro-orders.

[ATTACH SCREENSHOT 2 HERE - SELL BOOK (216.48 USDT)]

---

4. Cost vs. Actual Delivered Liquidity​

Let's put these numbers in perspective:

1. Total Active Liquidity (11 Bids + 11 Asks combined): $121.76 + $216.49 = $338.25 USDT total.
2. Reported Account Balance: $25,300 ($21.2K USDT + $4.04K PIVX). Less than 1.34% of the reported balance is actively quoting within a reasonable range of the market price.
3. Enflux Monthly Fee: $2,820 / month. The DAO is paying Enflux 8.3x more in monthly service fees ($2,820) than the entire visible liquidity on the order book ($338.25)!
4. Swap Partners Impact: The proposal states that ChangeNOW, Changelly, HoudiniSwap, and others rely on MEXC depth. With only $121.76 on the bid side down to -9.7% and $216.49 on the ask side up to +3.86%, any swap of even $500–$1,000 suffers severe slippage.

Summary Questions for the Proposer / Enflux:​

1. Where is the $21,200 USDT reported in the account if the entire buy book down to -9.7% only has $121.76 USDT?
2. Why is the spread at 1.59% when the stated target is below 1%?
3. Are the Enflux bots currently turned off, or are the funds parked 20–50% away from spot where they provide zero utility to traders and swap partners while the account continues to bleed $2,820/month in management fees?

 

[Eric_Stanek]

My guess is that what you are seeing is the volatility we can expect when we don't provide enough liquidity. But, let's see what @Liquid369 comes back with.

 

[Jeffrey]

You lack understanding of how market making works. Price just dropped so risk management pulls out liquidity to prevent us from being stuck on 1 asset so then we cannot provide market making.

Also you don’t put the entire balance on the books. There’s a percentage all the way down to -15%

I’ve reached out to the mm team to review

 

[MrAli]

You lack understanding of how market making works. Price just dropped so risk management pulls out liquidity to prevent us from being stuck on 1 asset so then we cannot provide market making.Also you don’t put the entire balance on the books. There’s a percentage all the way down to -15%I’ve reached out to the mm team to review[/QUOTE]

@Jeffrey Let’s test both of your claims against the actual chart, the proposal text, and the live -15% order book (screenshot attached below):

1. Checking the Order Book All the Way Down to -15%​

• Spot Price: 0.043001 USDT
• Exact -15.00% Level: 0.036550 / 0.036549 USDT
• As shown in the attached screenshot, the total cumulative buy depth all the way down to 0.036549 (-15.00%)across 20 price levels is:
  • Sum PIVX: 10,998.13 PIVX
  • Sum USDT: $428.48 USDT (428.477019 USDT)
• Out of the $21,200 USDT reported in the Enflux account, $428.48 is barely 2.02% of the USDT balance across the entire -15% range (and that $428 includes retail orders!). Where is the other 98% (~$20,770 USDT)?(Note: The 150,077 PIVX / $5,402 order below -15% at 0.036000 with the green dot is a personal retail limit order, NOT Enflux).

---

2. "Price just dropped so risk management pulls out liquidity to prevent us from being stuck on 1 asset"​

Neither part of that explanation holds up:

1. The price did NOT drop — it pumped: Look at the daily/4h chart right next to the order book. Price just rallied from ~0.0365 up to 0.04585 and is trading at 0.0430 (up ~18%).
2. The account is ALREADY stuck on 1 asset (84% USDT): According to the proposal itself:
   
   

   "Last public reading, 2026-10-08: $25.3K total, $21.2K USDT, $4.04K PIVX. Buying pressure has left the book skewed toward USDT. Enflux needs PIVX..."

   
   When a market maker's inventory is 84% USDT ($21.2K) and only 16% PIVX ($4.04K), having bids filled on a dip rebalances the inventory back toward PIVX—which is the exact asset the proposal says Enflux needs! Pulling USDT buy orders when you are already 84% in USDT makes zero inventory-management sense.

---

Bottom Line​

Nobody is asking Enflux to put 100% of the balance on a single tick. Pointing out that:

• Total bid liquidity down to -9.7% is $121.76,
• Total bid liquidity down to -15.0% is $428.48 (only 2% of their $21,200 USDT), and
• The spread is 1.59% (violating the <1% target),

is not a "lack of understanding of market making"—it is reading the order book. Glad you reached out to the MM team to review, and looking forward to seeing what they report back.

 

[MrAli]

We buy from the market every day, and this is what we see happening on a daily basis. This is exactly why I say our market maker is just collecting money without doing the job. We are not willing to pay him even 1 PIVX for this kind of performance.

He doesn't even place substantial orders 15% away from the market price. From our perspective, he is doing absolutely nothing in the market.

I am 100% against this market maker. Jeffrey, you were responsible for overseeing his work, yet you never even checked his performance once. This is one of the reasons why we oppose your proposal.

 

[Liquid369]

Sometimes I just need patience and people to let me handle things. This isnt helpful right now. Budget has been finalized, I am getting a report from the Market makers for everyone to see where it stands currently, and how things will work.

Just because they are to support the markets, they are also not going to catch falling knives and have to protect funds also. It is indeed there for liquidity but its not intended to just be a bucket to drain either so it will change based on their algorithm assessments.

I have taken over the proposal to bring some clarity into the space and to keep us from derailing everything.

 

[Jeffrey]

Our market makers made a video here:

Screen Recording 2026-11-05 at 8.15.16.mov

drive.google.com

Summary here -


What the dashboard shows

• The left side is the buy side (bid support), the right side is the sell side, at 2% depth.
• The green line is the depth they provide; the yellow line is total book depth. The gap between the two is real organic liquidity.
• They say there’s almost no organic liquidity. Most of the time they’re close to 100% of the book, so without them PIVX would barely be tradable.

Balances and volatility

• They started with about $13–14K in stables and $6–7K in PIVX. They now hold about $20K, which they say isn’t much for how volatile PIVX is.
• Volume comes in waves, with big inflows and outflows. The price fell from about $0.06 to $0.03 after Binance announced the delisting, then had repeated sharp pumps and dumps.

Why depth sometimes drops to zero

• They pull bids during pumps so they aren’t buying high and then getting dumped on. They say profit isn’t the goal, but they have to avoid losses that would drain the account.
• They hold back tokens during rallies so they can keep selling at higher levels instead of selling everything at the start.
• Spending thresholds: they set tight limits and adjust them often. Right now the threshold is $21K against $21.5K available, so a $500 sell wipes out bid support until they lower the threshold again.
• They’re short on tokens. Since late September they’ve kept running out, and when the team asked them to keep the book full regardless, they say the market made them “buy high and sell low.”
• Average prices limit them. They won’t place bids above their earlier sell levels, because that would lock in a loss.

Spread numbers

• They describe spread as simply a result of how much depth they can provide.
• Last 180 days: spread was under 2% for 96.2% of the time and under 1% for 87.8%. They say it was under 0.5% only about half the time; the dashboard shows 65.3%.
• Last 7 days: spread was under 2% only about 75% of the time, because there’s often almost nothing on the sell side.
• They say the target that matters is 2%, because that’s what MEXC watches, not 1%.
• When the market was calm and both sides held $8–10K, spread was 20–40 basis points (0.2–0.4%).

How they use the funds

• They aim to put 20–40% of the account on the book, so $4–8K on a $20K account. They point to 5% depth of about $4K and 10% depth of about $5–6K as proof.
• Over the last week, bid depth has mostly been $2–3K and ask depth $1–2K when tokens were available.
• Last week’s average sell price was about $0.0391 and average buy about $0.0386.

What they’re asking for and pushing back on

• A token top-up, so they can rebuild the sell side at current prices. They say that’s also the only way they can put consistent bids back.
• They “strongly disagree” with judging their work from brief moments of zero depth. They say to look at 7/14/30-day averages and MEXC’s requirements.
• Keeping MEXC’s targets met is a top priority for them, so PIVX doesn’t get an ST tag (the warning label that limits API access and warns every trader).
• They offered regular updates on request.

The core message: depth is limited by their funds, not by willingness, and they need more PIVX to keep both sides of the book solid.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

The video is really good. I hope everyone watches it, even if a lot of it goes over your head - like it did for me.

BUT, when you watch it, listen carefully for comments about how the total funds in the MM account are NOT BIG ENOUGH!

We absolutely need to increase the liquidity pool. Massively and as fast as possible. The math is the math is the math is the math.

Kudos to Enflux for doing such a great job for us. They are clearly doing the best they can, with the very restrictive super small liquidity pool. They tell us we need a much larger liquidity pool. The entire industry says we need a larger liquidity pool. Other Market Makers say we need a larger liquidity pool. The market says we need a bigger liquidity pool. But, in PIVX we have some vocal people who think they know better. They just don't. I just shake my head. Such actions undermine the very Meritocracy PIVX is built on.

Thank you Jeffrey for finding Enflux and building the relationship with them. Without the efforts from you and Liquid, we would be in terrible shape right now.

I would expect that other Market Makers are apprehensive to do business with us given the very small liquidity pool. It makes it really hard for them to do their job. Most Market Makers would simply reject us as a client. All of them would likely charge us MORE.

So, what should happen is that we respect the loyalty, commitment, customer service and expertise that Enflux is demonstrating, continue to work with them, and THANK THEM. But, respecting them means LISTENING TO THEM and INCREASING the Liquidity Pool significantly!!!

The sooner the Liquidity Pool is increased, the sooner the price increases and the sooner the risk of being de-listed drops. That also then means the sooner we can afford to fund all proposals that add value to the PIVX ecosystem.