Menu
What's new

  • Due to abuse, self-registration is disabled.

    Registration is only required for posting topics or replies. To register, make a request on any of the PIVX social media or chat channels.

    NOTE: To enhance forum security, new accounts that have no posts within a 30-day period are subject to being deleted.

Active PIVXMMFund12

Recent posts here all have time stamps very close to each other. Perhaps they by-passed each other. Because it seems to me, that all questions have been answered?
 
Sure, let’s start with the first one since you invited me to look at the proposal addresses.

In the previous MM proposal payout address:
DE4gavfKV3KE7naHvhaD9zZUnznF8tF6k9

You received 85,400 PIVX from the treasury.

Immediately in transaction:
`0aaa1dae4da9995546e97f819eb12e9f312e2501b574de72c6ea54f7d5e1b63f`

The entire 85,400 PIVX was sent directly into a shielded Sapling address instead of going to MEXC or Enflux market maker orderbooks.

Can you explain why the market making funds were shielded into Sapling, and where they went next?
 
MrAli said:
I have deliberately framed my questions to give you every fair opportunity to come forward—in case an unintended mistake occurred, an accounting oversight happened, or something was simply forgotten. Yet you continue to deflect.

For the final time, I will ask directly:

Are you willing to amicably disclose these numbers and payout details now, so that if there is any genuine misunderstanding, it can be resolved transparently right here?
Click to expand...
Show me the transaction you’ve seen so I can
MrAli said:
Sure, let’s start with the first one since you invited me to look at the proposal addresses.

In the previous MM proposal payout address:
DE4gavfKV3KE7naHvhaD9zZUnznF8tF6k9

You received 85,400 PIVX from the treasury.

Immediately in transaction:
`0aaa1dae4da9995546e97f819eb12e9f312e2501b574de72c6ea54f7d5e1b63f`

The entire 85,400 PIVX was sent directly into a shielded Sapling address instead of going to MEXC or Enflux market maker orderbooks.

Can you explain why the market making funds were shielded into Sapling, and where they went next?
Click to expand...
answered this already I had an otc opportunity but that fell
Through. The entire balance is still
There and will be moved back to transparent to be transferred either to XT or MEXC pending discussion from XT market making team. This was answered in my first response here.
Txid of payment will be provided when that’s done
 
MrAli said:
Sure, let’s start with the first one since you invited me to look at the proposal addresses.

In the previous MM proposal payout address:
DE4gavfKV3KE7naHvhaD9zZUnznF8tF6k9

You received 85,400 PIVX from the treasury.

Immediately in transaction:
`0aaa1dae4da9995546e97f819eb12e9f312e2501b574de72c6ea54f7d5e1b63f`

The entire 85,400 PIVX was sent directly into a shielded Sapling address instead of going to MEXC or Enflux market maker orderbooks.

Can you explain why the market making funds were shielded into Sapling, and where they went next?
Click to expand...

Why do you even bother asking questions if you aren't going to read the answers?
 
Eric_Stanek said:
Recent posts here all have time stamps very close to each other. Perhaps they by-passed each other. Because it seems to me, that all questions have been answered?
Click to expand...

Jeffrey said:
Show me the transaction you’ve seen so I can

answered this already I had an otc opportunity but that fell
Through. The entire balance is still
There and will be moved back to transparent to be transferred either to XT or MEXC pending discussion from XT market making team. This was answered in my first response here.
Txid of payment will be provided when that’s done
Click to expand...

I am not convinced by this explanation at all, @Jeffrey.

Every time we asked if any funds remained in the wallets, you kept repeating that everything was already sent to the market makers.

Now, suddenly you claim the entire 85,400 PIVX from last month is sitting unspent because of an "OTC deal that fell through"—yet you still asked the treasury for another 85,400 PIVX in this new proposal.

Not to mention the obvious question of why public market making funds were put into a shielded Sapling address in the first place.

I will let the community and everyone reading this judge for themselves.
 
To keep things transparent and clear, @Jeffrey and @Eric_Stanek, could you please answer one direct question:

Do either of these two addresses belong to you, or are they under your control?

1. DT2hoNn3n3bB8b8QRoqvqWM9y3e7wo8XXz
2. DLkFrbvFDroxaEhtiFU3htXE6avx1W6jZi

A simple confirmation would be appreciated.
 
MrAli said:
I am not convinced by this explanation at all, @Jeffrey.

Every time we asked if any funds remained in the wallets, you kept repeating that everything was already sent to the market makers.

Now, suddenly you claim the entire 85,400 PIVX from last month is sitting unspent because of an "OTC deal that fell through"—yet you still asked the treasury for another 85,400 PIVX in this new proposal.

Not to mention the obvious question of why public market making funds were put into a shielded Sapling address in the first place.

I will let the community and everyone reading this judge for themselves.
Click to expand...
Selling large large amounts of PIVX at market will cause price drops and damage our liquidity so I always opt for wizard swap or even better OTC. If the user wants shield then I give them shield. Funds always go to its destination :)
 
@MrAli You are perfectly aware of the liquidity issues facing PIVX. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that if there was an opportunity to exchange the PIVX for USDT or even BTC, without causing significant downward pressure on price, that it would be prudent for @Jeffrey to try and make that happen. In fact, it would be his responsibility to do so. Because if it was later learned that he ignored such an opportunity, and instead caused the price to drop, then we would all be justified in being upset.

Therefore, the explanation is a solid one. If the 85,400 PIV don't land when transferred as he stated, THEN you are justified with your concerns. But right now, it is a perfectly acceptable answer.

I THANK Jeffrey for looking out for the best interests of PIVX. You should too.
 
An exchange? Really @Jeffrey?

Which exchange has only 10 transactions in total and holds 3.2 Million PIVX?

And more importantly: **which exchange used that exact wallet to create 25 Masternodes** in transaction:
`74e1436c70902602a1e5c9424a18b70dcb7ad835dfee0117f6e280feaf0e30a6`
and actively casts votes on DAO proposals?

Can you name this exchange that runs 25 voting Masternodes on PIVX? ;)
 
Eric_Stanek said:
@MrAli You are perfectly aware of the liquidity issues facing PIVX. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that if there was an opportunity to exchange the PIVX for USDT or even BTC, without causing significant downward pressure on price, that it would be prudent for @Jeffrey to try and make that happen. In fact, it would be his responsibility to do so. Because if it was later learned that he ignored such an opportunity, and instead caused the price to drop, then we would all be justified in being upset.

Therefore, the explanation is a solid one. If the 85,400 PIV don't land when transferred as he stated, THEN you are justified with your concerns. But right now, it is a perfectly acceptable answer.

I THANK Jeffrey for looking out for the best interests of PIVX. You should too.
Click to expand...
Thank him for what, @Eric_Stanek?

Thank him for keeping unspent public treasury funds in a shielded address after repeatedly claiming that everything had already been sent to market makers?

Or thank him for claiming that a wallet holding 3.2M PIVX and running 25 voting Masternodes belongs to an "exchange"?

And by the way Eric, last time things got uncomfortable on this forum, you deleted Snappy's and Borris's posts to hide the truth.

Who is going to delete your posts this time?
 
Jeffrey said:
I didn’t say both addresses I said 1. As for the other address I have no clue
Click to expand...
You have "no clue" who owns the other address, @Jeffrey?

Then how did hundreds of thousands of PIVX from your own proposal address (`DHQHLf...`) get consolidated directly into that address via transactions `49e0326c...` and `ca82cf36...`?

Did public DAO funds leave your proposal into an address you claim you don't even know?

And on the blockchain, both of these addresses are cryptographically linked from the same wallet (one is the destination and the other is the change address).

So which of the two do you claim is the "exchange"?
 
MrAli said:
Or thank him for claiming that a wallet holding 3.2M PIVX and running 25 voting Masternodes belongs to an "exchange"?
Click to expand...
Again - he never said that either.

You are welcome to lie and word-spin all you like. Just know that it removes power and reputation from you, and adds power and reputation to me for calling you out. Thanks.
 
MrAli said:
Then how did hundreds of thousands of PIVX from your own proposal address (`DHQHLf...`) get consolidated directly into that address via transactions `49e0326c...` and `ca82cf36...`?

Did public DAO funds leave your proposal into an address you claim you don't even know?
Click to expand...
I think the English speaking people here could 'hear' the sarcasm. But you missed it.

He did say one was an exchange address. That certainly addresses your concern.
 
This isn't about personal ego, power, or reputation, @Eric_Stanek. @Jeffrey

It is about public blockchain data that anyone can verify on the explorer:

1. Did the treasury funds from proposal `DHQHLf...` land in wallet `DT2hoNn3n3bB8b8QRoqvqWM9y3e7wo8XXz` via transaction `ca82cf366d392b9ff9e96b6d020ba615925bf0c054deeaf481299822ab359751`? **Yes.**
2. Did that exact wallet create 25 Masternodes in transaction `74e1436c70902602a1e5c9424a18b70dcb7ad835dfee0117f6e280feaf0e30a6`? **Yes.**

The blockchain does not lie or word-spin.

If you have a factual explanation for these two transactions, please share it. Otherwise, personal rhetoric will not change the ledger.
 
Eric_Stanek said:
I think the English speaking people here could 'hear' the sarcasm. But you missed it.

He did say one was an exchange address. That certainly addresses your concern.
Click to expand...
Wait, @Eric_Stanek. Which one is it?

Was it "sarcasm", or was it a serious answer that "addresses my concern"?

If it was sarcasm, then the question was never answered.

If it was a serious answer that one of them is an exchange, then the question still stands:

**Which exchange on earth creates 25 voting Masternodes in transaction `74e1436c...` and casts votes on DAO proposals?**

Can either of you simply name this exchange?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top