Active PIVXMMFund11

[Jeffrey]

Title: PIVXMMFund11
Name: PIVXMMFund11
Term: 1 Cycles
Cycle Amount: 120400
Total Amount:  120400
Author: Jeffrey
Receiver: Jeffrey
Address:  DHQHLfFdyLBY25bKLprn1mJxakyPbdmNq3
Status: Active
Vote Hash: c7c1d7f160781743a1f2e872615317c4b099dd3c96cd90dc625c80ec3cac43a0

Hi everyone,

This proposal is a continuation of prior MM proposals. I will be asking for remainder of the PIVX to add to our MM funds on MEXC.

Strong liquidity directly benefits the entire PIVX ecosystem by:

• Improving order book depth and resilience
• Tightening bid-ask spreads for better execution prices
• Reducing slippage on larger trades
• Supporting more stable and efficient price discovery especially for swap sites and payment gateways
• Making PIVX more attractive to traders and new participants

You can find the previous proposal here - https://forum.pivx.org/threads/pivxmmfund10.3009/

Funding:

For this cycle I will request a total 120 400 PIVX, of which 50 PIVX will be returned to me to cover the costs of submitting this proposal.

Voting Details:

---

To Vote YES for this proposal:

mnbudgetvote many c7c1d7f160781743a1f2e872615317c4b099dd3c96cd90dc625c80ec3cac43a0 yes

To Vote NO for this proposal:

mnbudgetvote many c7c1d7f160781743a1f2e872615317c4b099dd3c96cd90dc625c80ec3cac43a0 no

 

[MrAli]

Hi @Jeffrey,

I have a straightforward question regarding the execution of this proposal:

On September 6, 2026 (Block 5,572,800), the PIVX superblock disbursed 120,400 PIVX to this proposal's address:
DHQHLfFdyLBY25bKLprn1mJxakyPbdmNq3

The stated purpose of this fund was specifically to provide two-way market making and liquidity on MEXC.

However, public on-chain data shows that 15 days later:
- Total Sent: 0.00 PIVX
- Current Balance: 120,400.00 PIVX

Meanwhile, in your BusinessDev14 thread (Post #6), you told the community that market maker liquidity was completely wiped out, and you asked the community to step up and provide AMM liquidity on NonKYC and CoinEx.

If this 120,400 PIVX was disbursed and sitting right here in this wallet the entire time, why wasn't it deployed to MEXC for liquidity as approved by the DAO?

Could you please clarify why these funds have remained completely idle for 15 days while the community is being told there is no liquidity left?

 

[Jeffrey]

Hi @Jeffrey,

I have a straightforward question regarding the execution of this proposal:

On September 6, 2026 (Block 5,572,800), the PIVX superblock disbursed 120,400 PIVX to this proposal's address:
DHQHLfFdyLBY25bKLprn1mJxakyPbdmNq3

The stated purpose of this fund was specifically to provide two-way market making and liquidity on MEXC.

However, public on-chain data shows that 15 days later:
- Total Sent: 0.00 PIVX
- Current Balance: 120,400.00 PIVX

Meanwhile, in your BusinessDev14 thread (Post #6), you told the community that market maker liquidity was completely wiped out, and you asked the community to step up and provide AMM liquidity on NonKYC and CoinEx.

If this 120,400 PIVX was disbursed and sitting right here in this wallet the entire time, why wasn't it deployed to MEXC for liquidity as approved by the DAO?

Could you please clarify why these funds have remained completely idle for 15 days while the community is being told there is no liquidity left?

You clearly don’t know what’s going on at PIVX.

Deposits at MEXC have been disabled up until a few hours ago that is why the funds have not moved.

Once the Marker maker sends an invoice the funds will move

Please learn about the project and what’s going on before making uneducated assumptions

 

[Jeffrey]

No where did I state we have no liquidity. Coinex and nonkyc have thin margins of liquidity on the AMM. So we promoted it. Users can earn

 

[MrAli]

You clearly don’t know what’s going on at PIVX.

Deposits at MEXC have been disabled up until a few hours ago that is why the funds have not moved.

Once the Marker maker sends an invoice the funds will move

Please learn about the project and what’s going on before making uneducated assumptions

There is no need for condescending remarks; we are simply asking legitimate questions based on your own written proposal:

1. Zero Mention of Fees or Invoices in the Proposal:
In your proposal text above, you stated that the 120,400 PIVX was requested specifically to:
- "add to our MM funds on MEXC"
- "Improving order book depth and resilience"
- "Tightening bid-ask spreads for better execution prices"
- "Reducing slippage on larger trades"

There is absolutely NO mention anywhere in this proposal that these funds were allocated to pay a service "invoice" or management retainer to a market maker. You presented this 120,400 PIVX to the DAO as active order-book trading capital.
How much of this 120,400 PIVX is actually going into order-book liquidity, and how much is being consumed by service fees? Why was this invoice structure not disclosed in the funding breakdown?

2. MEXC Deposits & NonKYC:
You mentioned that MEXC deposits were disabled until recently. If MEXC was unavailable, that makes community initiatives on platforms like NonKYC even more essential.
Why, then, did senior governance members use hundreds of masternodes to aggressively downvote community-matched liquidity on NonKYC while 120,400 PIVX of treasury capital was sitting idle waiting for an invoice?

Asking for transparency regarding 120,400 PIVX of community treasury funds is the duty of every masternode operator. We look forward to clear facts, not deflections.

 

[Jeffrey]

I cannot comment on why people downvoted your proposal. You are new here too and are proposing something that has never been done before

Why should anyone trust you? That’s something you need to prove

Market making funds are always used for liquidity and the mm team takes their costs out of it too

 

[Gerrald]

There is no need for condescending remarks; we are simply asking legitimate questions based on your own written proposal:

1. Zero Mention of Fees or Invoices in the Proposal:
In your proposal text above, you stated that the 120,400 PIVX was requested specifically to:
- "add to our MM funds on MEXC"
- "Improving order book depth and resilience"
- "Tightening bid-ask spreads for better execution prices"
- "Reducing slippage on larger trades"

There is absolutely NO mention anywhere in this proposal that these funds were allocated to pay a service "invoice" or management retainer to a market maker. You presented this 120,400 PIVX to the DAO as active order-book trading capital.
How much of this 120,400 PIVX is actually going into order-book liquidity, and how much is being consumed by service fees? Why was this invoice structure not disclosed in the funding breakdown?

2. MEXC Deposits & NonKYC:
You mentioned that MEXC deposits were disabled until recently. If MEXC was unavailable, that makes community initiatives on platforms like NonKYC even more essential.
Why, then, did senior governance members use hundreds of masternodes to aggressively downvote community-matched liquidity on NonKYC while 120,400 PIVX of treasury capital was sitting idle waiting for an invoice?

Asking for transparency regarding 120,400 PIVX of community treasury funds is the duty of every masternode operator. We look forward to clear facts, not deflections.

Your reasoning for transparency i cant argue and maybe this voting will help with that but with how you have done this proposal is not the best.

No one knows you, you obviously have a huge backing of mn to pass things just the way you have gone about this is no good. The person who sorts out mm is jeffery. This has been going on for years.

There has never been any problems and he is trusted but maybe your votes and discussions can help improve transparency to help?

Instead of trying to take control by using votes to push through proposals which appears you dont have enough as multiple mn owners have voted, not one single entity bar seems you has that many backers, your nos are from multiple people clearly as we have never had this much voting. The only reason some of these mn owners vote is when they strongly disagree.

Why not use your votes to shape pivx to make it better? I have always said the vote controls the direction of pivx and a few months of people not getting paid soon forces concessions, transparency, direction, or even them just clearing off based on the dao vote.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

I have always said the vote controls the direction of pivx and a few months of people not getting paid soon forces concessions, transparency, direction, or even them just clearing off

I suspect that @Jeffrey has signed an NDA for the 3rd party Market Maker we currently use. We can request transparency. But, they can refuse so as not to help their competitors undermine them.

The people we have left in PIVX are the ones that hold the most VALUE. They can't be replaced .... no one even close to their skills is going to join PIVX for the funds currently paid. Plus, NO ONE has the knowledge that they have. Stop paying these people and you will have killed PIVX. New people seeing how incredible the people we have are - and how they were forced to leave regardless - is just another massive red flag that will chase away talent, even before we knew they were checking us out. We know this to be true, because we have had zero luck attracting new people at that level.

If you think I am wrong - that's fine. But then go find new people first. At least that strategy means PIVX survives. But, you will fail. In fact, you already have - because you've been expressing this belief for years and have been unable to do anything to onboard new devs.

 

[MrAli]

I cannot comment on why people downvoted your proposal. You are new here too and are proposing something that has never been done before

Why should anyone trust you? That’s something you need to prove

Market making funds are always used for liquidity and the mm team takes their costs out of it too

Please stay on topic. This has nothing to do with any other proposal—this is strictly about the governance and financial execution of YOUR proposal, PIVXMMFund11:

1. Undisclosed Invoices vs. Order Book Depth:
In your proposal text above, you explicitly stated that this 120,400 PIVX was requested to:
- "add to our MM funds on MEXC"
- "Improving order book depth and resilience"
- "Tightening bid-ask spreads for better execution prices"
- "Reducing slippage on larger trades"

Nowhere in your proposal did you disclose that these funds were allocated to pay a third-party service "invoice" or management retainer fees.
In any transparent DAO, paying vendor invoices requires clear itemized disclosure, not masking them as order-book trading capital.

The community deserves straight, factual answers:
- Out of this 120,400 PIVX, how much is actually placed on the MEXC order book as trading depth, and how much is being consumed to pay the market maker's invoice?
- Why was this service fee / invoice structure completely omitted from the proposal’s funding breakdown?

2. Your Contradiction on Liquidity:
In Post #4 you stated: "No where did I state we have no liquidity."
Yet in your own BusinessDev14 thread (Post #6), your exact written words were:
> "Major price drops pretty much wiped out most of our liquidity. All while trying to maintain the mm fees... So it’s likely we cannot maintain mm after this."

These are your own public statements.

Masternode operators funding this treasury have a fundamental right to know how 120,400 PIVX is being spent. We look forward to clear numbers, not deflections.

 

[MrAli]

Your reasoning for transparency i cant argue and maybe this voting will help with that but with how you have done this proposal is not the best.

No one knows you, you obviously have a huge backing of mn to pass things just the way you have gone about this is no good. The person who sorts out mm is jeffery. This has been going on for years.

There has never been any problems and he is trusted but maybe your votes and discussions can help improve transparency to help?

Instead of trying to take control by using votes to push through proposals which appears you dont have enough as multiple mn owners have voted, not one single entity bar seems you has that many backers, your nos are from multiple people clearly as we have never had this much voting. The only reason some of these mn owners vote is when they strongly disagree.

Why not use your votes to shape pivx to make it better? I have always said the vote controls the direction of pivx and a few months of people not getting paid soon forces concessions, transparency, direction, or even them just clearing off based on the dao vote.

@Gerrald,

Thank you for this comment. Honestly, this is one of the most balanced, mature, and constructive perspectives shared on this forum in a long time, and I truly respect your insight.

I want to address your points directly and transparently:

1. Regarding Being "New" & Intentions:
I completely understand why community members might feel hesitant when seeing a large presence that wasn't previously vocal on the forum.
I want to assure you: We are not here to "take control" or disrupt what genuinely works. In fact, our masternodes have quietly supported and voted YES on the core team's proposals cycle after cycle for a very long time.
We are not hostile outsiders; we are heavily invested stakeholders who genuinely want to see PIVX grow, regain market relevance, and stop bleeding value.

2. You Hit the Nail on the Head Regarding the Power of the Vote:
Your statement resonated with me deeply:
> "Why not use your votes to shape pivx to make it better? I have always said the vote controls the direction of pivx and a few months of people not getting paid soon forces concessions, transparency, direction..."

You are 100% right. For too long, the treasury has operated on autopilot without real accountability—funds are disbursed, undisclosed invoices are paid, yet basic liquidity remains fragile and exchanges are lost. Quietly rubber-stamping proposals without asking for results is no longer helping PIVX.

3. Moving Forward Constructively:
We did not step forward to fight with Jeffrey or anyone else. But when a community member steps up offering personal matching capital and 0% fees, only to face immediate coordinated downvotes and resistance from entrenched figures, it becomes clear that checks and balances are urgently needed.

We want what you want: Real transparency, verifiable accounting, and an end to closed monopolies.
As you rightly said, masternode votes exist to shape the project. We intend to use that voting power constructively—to demand the exact concessions, itemized ledgers, and transparency you spoke of, ensuring that treasury funds actually build value for PIVX.

Thank you again for your thoughtful words; perspectives like yours are exactly what this DAO needs.

 

[MrAli]

I suspect that @Jeffrey has signed an NDA for the 3rd party Market Maker we currently use. We can request transparency. But, they can refuse so as not to help their competitors undermine them.

The people we have left in PIVX are the ones that hold the most VALUE. They can't be replaced .... no one even close to their skills is going to join PIVX for the funds currently paid. Plus, NO ONE has the knowledge that they have. Stop paying these people and you will have killed PIVX. New people seeing how incredible the people we have are - and how they were forced to leave regardless - is just another massive red flag that will chase away talent, even before we knew they were checking us out. We know this to be true, because we have had zero luck attracting new people at that level.

If you think I am wrong - that's fine. But then go find new people first. At least that strategy means PIVX survives. But, you will fail. In fact, you already have - because you've been expressing this belief for years and have been unable to do anything to onboard new devs.

Hi @Eric_Stanek,

Using an "NDA" as an excuse to avoid accountability with public treasury funds fundamentally contradicts the core principles of a decentralized DAO:

1. Public Treasury Means Complete Transparency—No Secret NDAs:
PIVX is an open-source, public blockchain funded by network inflation and masternode consensus. Every single satoshi minted by the superblock belongs to the community.
If a third-party service provider demands an "NDA" that prevents the masternode operators who fund them from seeing basic financial accounting, fee breakdowns, or deployment verification, then that agreement is incompatible with a decentralized DAO.
Public community funds cannot disappear behind corporate NDAs. Masternodes are the funders and shareholders—they have an absolute right to know where 120,400 PIVX goes.

2. Conflating Core Developers with Secret Retainers:
Please stop deflecting by conflating essential core developers with third-party MM retainers.
Nobody is suggesting that we stop paying core developers who write code, maintain GitHub, and protect the network. Masternodes have consistently and happily funded developers for years.
What is being questioned here is completely different: It is 120,400 PIVX allocated specifically for exchange liquidity that has sat completely idle in a personal address for 15 days, with zero transparency and vague excuses about secret invoices.

3. Decentralized Reality vs. Legacy Backrooms:
In Web3, real market making and liquidity happen on-chain and transparently. In an AMM pool, every single satoshi, spread, and transaction is publicly verifiable 24/7 by anyone in the world.
Hiding behind "NDAs" and telling the community "you can't see the numbers because of competitors" belongs to centralized corporate backrooms, not a project whose ticker is PIVX.

True decentralization requires complete transparency. There are no secrets when spending community funds.

 

[Gerrald]

Hi @Eric_Stanek,

Using an "NDA" as an excuse to avoid accountability with public treasury funds fundamentally contradicts the core principles of a decentralized DAO:

1. Public Treasury Means Complete Transparency—No Secret NDAs:
PIVX is an open-source, public blockchain funded by network inflation and masternode consensus. Every single satoshi minted by the superblock belongs to the community.
If a third-party service provider demands an "NDA" that prevents the masternode operators who fund them from seeing basic financial accounting, fee breakdowns, or deployment verification, then that agreement is incompatible with a decentralized DAO.
Public community funds cannot disappear behind corporate NDAs. Masternodes are the funders and shareholders—they have an absolute right to know where 120,400 PIVX goes.

2. Conflating Core Developers with Secret Retainers:
Please stop deflecting by conflating essential core developers with third-party MM retainers.
Nobody is suggesting that we stop paying core developers who write code, maintain GitHub, and protect the network. Masternodes have consistently and happily funded developers for years.
What is being questioned here is completely different: It is 120,400 PIVX allocated specifically for exchange liquidity that has sat completely idle in a personal address for 15 days, with zero transparency and vague excuses about secret invoices.

3. Decentralized Reality vs. Legacy Backrooms:
In Web3, real market making and liquidity happen on-chain and transparently. In an AMM pool, every single satoshi, spread, and transaction is publicly verifiable 24/7 by anyone in the world.
Hiding behind "NDAs" and telling the community "you can't see the numbers because of competitors" belongs to centralized corporate backrooms, not a project whose ticker is PIVX.

True decentralization requires complete transparency. There are no secrets when spending community funds.

These are the discussions that help build the dao. I see no hate or anger just someone trying to help grow pivx. Still the reason your getting the no votes is because jeffery has always done it and that's a huge leap for someone not known. Jeffery is trusted and already does this well but it has highlighted some people may want abit more transparency. Things can only go up from here.

 

[MrAli]

These are the discussions that help build the dao. I see no hate or anger just someone trying to help grow pivx. Still the reason your getting the no votes is because jeffery has always done it and that's a huge leap for someone not known. Jeffery is trusted and already does this well but it has highlighted some people may want abit more transparency. Things can only go up from here.

Thank you @Gerrald for your balanced and thoughtful perspective.

You raised the point about "trust," and I think this highlights the core difference that every masternode operator needs to recognize:

1. Verification vs. Blind Trust:
When we fund our technical developers (like Luke or Duddino), their work is 100% transparent and auditable 24/7 on GitHub. Every line of code, every pull request, and every commit is verifiable. Masternodes happily vote YES because we can verify what we are paying for.

2. Public Treasury Demands Accounting:
In contrast, millions of PIVX have been disbursed over the years for business development and market making without a single itemized invoice, exchange ledger, or deployment verification shared with the community.

When basic questions about 120,400 PIVX sitting idle for 15 days are deflected with "NDAs and confidentiality," it contradicts the fundamental ethos of crypto: "Don't trust, verify."

Masternode owners fund this network through inflation. Asking for verifiable accounting is not an attack on anyone—it is the very definition of decentralized governance. If we replace verification with blind trust, then the DAO ceases to function as intended.

I truly hope this discussion opens the door to real transparency and itemized reporting for all future treasury proposals.

 

[Eric_Stanek]

There is so much to say about your posts. I will summarize. You are not fighing for the TRUTH. You are using 'Word Spin', to satisfy your ego. Full stop. It's disgusting.

For example, you stated; "When basic questions about 120,400 PIVX sitting idle for 15 days are deflected with "NDAs and confidentiality,"

The 15 day delay has been explained to you at least 3 times already. MEXC was CLOSED FOR DEPOSITS! They only opened up for deposits 6 or 7 hrs ago. Now @Jeffrey is waiting for an invoice from the 3rd party Market Maker service.

NDAs and confidentiality are part of Business Development. We can do our best to honor transparency, but if we demand NO NDAs or confidentiality, then we CRIPPLE our own Business Development because no one will work with us.

As such, your comment I quoted above shows you can't be trusted to listen to what is explained to you multiple times, and even then you apply failed logic. Do better.

Expecting someone to deposit to an exchange that is CLOSED FOR DEPOSITS is ludicrous. That's why YOU deflected above and stated there were other reasons.

Expecting PIVX to force all businesses to take steps to help their competition is also ludicrous. Do you share your quotes for your business with your competitors? Of course not.

There is no secret retainer for the Market Makers. In fact, the entire industry uses Market Makers, and they are each a business that needs to earn income. @Jeffrey may not mention every single point in every single proposal, but that doesn't mean it is secret. It is expected that the MNO will ask questions when needed and not make assumptions. In the past, there have been many discussions on trying different Market Makers and the pros/cons of each, including which are more expensive and how well respected they are in the industry etc. It is actually the rare exception that exchanges provide functionality like the Liquidity Pool that NonKYC.io offers, or the AMM that CoinEx offered before they announced they were shutting down all operations. Typically, it is a Market maker service - and they each have developed their own algorithms to optimize the results. It is not something we could ever expect to do ourselves. In other words - EVERYONE uses Market Makers. It is not a secret from Jeffrey, it is ignorance on your part.

I agree that questions are fair to ask. What is NOT fair, and I will push back on MASSIVELY, is starting from the stance that someone who has sacrificed so much for PIVX, and is trusted at the highest level by everyone else, is assumed to be doing wrong by PIVX. You are new here. You are demonstrating over and over again you know very little. That's fine - it takes time to learn. We often mention it is a 'rabbit hole' that never ends. But, give some respect to those that have that knowledge. You will find your questions will be answered in a better tone.

Then, when you get the answers, and they pass the most basic logic and rational thought tests, don't just ignore them and state something that we know to not be true!

Again - fight for the truth. Stop putting word spin into things to satisfy your ego. It will not end well.

 

[Jeffrey]

Hey all,

Let me briefly clear some things up. Firstly I never stated we have no liquditiy. I stated most was wiped out because we had injected liquidity above the 15 cent mark and at the time of writing we were under 2 cents. There are costs involved and more.

My reason for stating that we may not continue mm is because of how expensive it is per month. Although we are using one of the cheapest it wouldn’t be possible if PIVX pricing stayed at that low point.

My reason for waiting for an invoice is because since last payment we were paying for both Binance and MEXC and due to this it was discounted. Now they are giving us a new offer for a single exchange.

Enflux, our market maker has requested more PIVX. They currently are looking for 700k PIVX this is due to recent buying pressure and lack of selling pressure on mexc due to no deposits. I have requested a PIVX deposit address so I can deposit those funds today.

All mm proposals cover:
liquidity
Fees
Trading fees

I will specify this in the new proposal once again. Which should be submitted today as well


I’ve provided our last invoice which was provided previously

 

[Jeffrey]

And yes there are NDA in place. This is normal for business practice and common place with exchange listings and market makers.

 

[KYMAVR]

Hey everyone, taking a step back to look at the big picture here.

First, thank you @Jeffrey for uploading the past invoice and clarifying that the billing delay was due to the transition away from Binance. This completely clears the air. MrAli, your push for this exact kind of verifiable accounting is what makes a DAO healthy. We just proved that we can ask hard questions and get transparent answers without the project falling apart.

But we need to look at the massive alpha Jeffrey just dropped in that update. The market maker is requesting 700k PIVX specifically due to "recent buying pressure and lack of selling pressure on mexc".

BTC just crossed $85k, the privacy rotation is cascading, and our own market maker is getting squeezed by the buy volume. This is the exact moment we need to be completely aligned. Defunding our primary liquidity gateway right as the buy pressure is overwhelming the order books would kill this breakout instantly.

My nodes will be voting YES on this proposal because protecting the current price action on MEXC is our absolute operational priority.

Going forward, we shouldn't have to go through a forum war just to see a vendor invoice. 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. Let's get this funded, feed this buy pressure, and build the next cycle better.

- Lydia

 

[MrAli]

Hey all,

Let me briefly clear some things up. Firstly I never stated we have no liquditiy. I stated most was wiped out because we had injected liquidity above the 15 cent mark and at the time of writing we were under 2 cents. There are costs involved and more.

My reason for stating that we may not continue mm is because of how expensive it is per month. Although we are using one of the cheapest it wouldn’t be possible if PIVX pricing stayed at that low point.

My reason for waiting for an invoice is because since last payment we were paying for both Binance and MEXC and due to this it was discounted. Now they are giving us a new offer for a single exchange.

Enflux, our market maker has requested more PIVX. They currently are looking for 700k PIVX this is due to recent buying pressure and lack of selling pressure on mexc due to no deposits. I have requested a PIVX deposit address so I can deposit those funds today.

All mm proposals cover:
liquidity
Fees
Trading fees

I will specify this in the new proposal once again. Which should be submitted today as well


I’ve provided our last invoice which was provided previously


View attachment 3388

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.

 

[MrAli]

Hey everyone, taking a step back to look at the big picture here.

First, thank you @Jeffrey for uploading the past invoice and clarifying that the billing delay was due to the transition away from Binance. This completely clears the air. MrAli, your push for this exact kind of verifiable accounting is what makes a DAO healthy. We just proved that we can ask hard questions and get transparent answers without the project falling apart.

But we need to look at the massive alpha Jeffrey just dropped in that update. The market maker is requesting 700k PIVX specifically due to "recent buying pressure and lack of selling pressure on mexc".

BTC just crossed $85k, the privacy rotation is cascading, and our own market maker is getting squeezed by the buy volume. This is the exact moment we need to be completely aligned. Defunding our primary liquidity gateway right as the buy pressure is overwhelming the order books would kill this breakout instantly.

My nodes will be voting YES on this proposal because protecting the current price action on MEXC is our absolute operational priority.

Going forward, we shouldn't have to go through a forum war just to see a vendor invoice. 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. Let's get this funded, feed this buy pressure, and build the next cycle better.

- Lydia

Thank you @KYMAVR (Lydia), I completely agree with your big-picture perspective. We all want to see PIVX capture this market momentum, feed the buy pressure, and see the price break out. That is our shared goal.

However, as a long-term investor who has been active in ecosystems like Tron for years, there is a fundamental difference we cannot ignore:

In mature Web3 networks, DAO treasury wallets, balances, and real-time disbursements are completely public. Anyone can track every transaction live on-chain. In PIVX, that basic visibility has been missing.

Let's look at this through the eyes of an outside investor:
When a prospective new investor visits our forum, they see proposals getting rubber-stamped cycle after cycle without a single question, and large sums disbursed without verifiable accounting. And whenever a stakeholder asks a legitimate question about where public funds went, the immediate reaction from leadership is to take personal offense, get defensive, or resort to emotional threats: "We will leave, and PIVX will die without us."

This defensive culture is precisely why new capital and institutional investors stay away from PIVX. Serious capital does not invest in closed backrooms governed by emotional ultimatums.

I am not here to fight anyone. But as someone who has held substantial capital in PIVX for years, watching that value bleed without answers, I have an absolute right—and duty—to step forward and ask what happened to our treasury funds.

Itemized invoices and transparent balance sheets are not an attack; they are the bare minimum standard required to attract new investors and build lasting trust. I welcome your initiative to standardize reporting, because clear accounting is the only way PIVX will truly grow.

 

[KYMAVR]

Thank you @KYMAVR (Lydia), I completely agree with your big-picture perspective. We all want to see PIVX capture this market momentum, feed the buy pressure, and see the price break out. That is our shared goal.

However, as a long-term investor who has been active in ecosystems like Tron for years, there is a fundamental difference we cannot ignore:

In mature Web3 networks, DAO treasury wallets, balances, and real-time disbursements are completely public. Anyone can track every transaction live on-chain. In PIVX, that basic visibility has been missing.

Let's look at this through the eyes of an outside investor:
When a prospective new investor visits our forum, they see proposals getting rubber-stamped cycle after cycle without a single question, and large sums disbursed without verifiable accounting. And whenever a stakeholder asks a legitimate question about where public funds went, the immediate reaction from leadership is to take personal offense, get defensive, or resort to emotional threats: "We will leave, and PIVX will die without us."

This defensive culture is precisely why new capital and institutional investors stay away from PIVX. Serious capital does not invest in closed backrooms governed by emotional ultimatums.

I am not here to fight anyone. But as someone who has held substantial capital in PIVX for years, watching that value bleed without answers, I have an absolute right—and duty—to step forward and ask what happened to our treasury funds.

Itemized invoices and transparent balance sheets are not an attack; they are the bare minimum standard required to attract new investors and build lasting trust. I welcome your initiative to standardize reporting, because clear accounting is the only way PIVX will truly grow.

@MrAli You are highlighting the exact operational growing pains every legacy DAO faces when trying to attract institutional capital. You are 100% correct that clear NAV reporting, distributed asset tracking, and verifiable balance sheets are the baseline requirements for mature Web3 networks. Serious capital requires serious accounting.

Where we align perfectly is the solution. The friction we are seeing in these threads isn't malicious; it is exactly what happens when a decentralized project scales without standardizing its administrative pipelines. Instead of litigating the past 12 cycles, let's fix the pipeline today.

To take the administrative burden off the core team and give stakeholders the visibility they need, I’ve drafted a V1 PIVX Market Maker Reporting Template. It simplifies monthly NAV, deployed trading capital, and vendor fees into a standardized breakdown. If we hand the team a turnkey reporting format, we eliminate the friction of pulling these numbers manually every cycle.

Let's secure the PIV to feed this immediate MEXC buy pressure, and commit to using this transparent framework for the next cycle.

Proposed V1 Market Maker Reporting Template​

Cycle Period: [e.g., Q4 2026 / Month]

Operating Exchanges: [e.g., MEXC]

Liquidity Metrics	PIVX Value	USDT Value	Notes / Variances
Beginning NAV	0.00	$0.00	Snapshot at cycle start
DAO Funds Received	0.00	$0.00	Block # / Proposal TxID
Allocated to Vendor Fees	-	$0.00	Fixed operational costs
Deployed to Exchange Book	0.00	$0.00	Active market-making capital
Ending NAV	0.00	$0.00	Snapshot at cycle end
Net Treasury Change	0.00	$0.00	Overall delta

Operational Notes / Market Context:

• Brief summary of market conditions (e.g., "700k PIVX deployed to absorb targeted organic buy-wall on MEXC during privacy sector rotation").