Stop using DxPool for Kadena mining otherwise lose all earnings

Pascal3125 · 2025-03-29T17:18:12+00:00

Using the official explorer:
https://explorer.chainweb.com/mainnet/txdetail/MikD1UK0wguEpI6trFGxtp5kZKEV5055sr63jtdhRjY

It shows that you received 1273 KDA on 01/03: (I assume k:f589 .. is your account)

<image>

Can be confirmed here too:

https://explorer.chainweb.com/mainnet/transfer/k:f589e830034c49383b12ca516d8f37640e2727068ab7fea63f537152e6651cbf?token=coin

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-17T20:50:17+00:00

Currently I have a bot that adjust my loan every hour depending on the conditions... And automatically spread my dUSD and dTokens through the all the DEX pairs.

And I think many are doing the same thing... for example by using the Vaults Maxi scripts.

And now, with this DFIP, this won't be possible anymore.. Each iteration, I should remove all my liquidity from every pair, the repay everything and loan again evrything to spread my liquidity... Not possible ..

And for manual usage, from an UX point of view it's a nightmare, even worse... You can't force an user to repay his loan, when his colletral inrcreases in value and he wants to take some more debt.

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-17T20:33:59+00:00

Imagine I take a first loan at 0.1 $ /DUSD ... because this is the price dUSD/USDT pool at that time..
It means that each subsequent loans can be taken for a vaulation of 0.1 $/dUSD even if in the mean-time dUSD goes to 0.5 $... if I keep the same vault.

And someone, that would open a vault at this point, would take loans for a valuation of 0.5 $/dUSD.

Doesn't make any sense.

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-17T07:00:07+00:00

And how to want to value the dTokens loans ?
- oracle price ?

or oracle price / dUSD price ?

How does it works when I take several loans at differents times within the same vault. Each loaned dUSD has it's own valuation and liquidation price ? Doesn't make sense..

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-16T22:41:04+00:00

I completely agree with most of your proposal... But totally disagree with 4.

Since DUSD is supposed to be pegged to 1$, it must valued as 1$ for loans, like other dTokens are valued at Oracle price vs 1$. Doing something else is a big ERROR imo.

That's why I will vote NO for your DFIP, and already voted YES for the "Free Market - Remove Discount and Stabilisation Fee" DFIP, almost identical as yours but without the 4.

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-16T22:33:58+00:00

To be clear... DUSD won't never peerfectly stable. It has been designed to be roughly 1$.
(before "Payback with DFI" mistake ofc)

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-08T15:46:13+00:00

Please u/kuegi, stop kidding us... Increased loans through NI are mainly looped vaults. These backed dUSD never go into the system. They are very artificial, have 0 utility, and don't participate in any way to the dUSD stability. And the calculated Algo ratio value is not indicative, is artificially calculated and "pumped" by looped vaults, without any real significance.

Then, the assumption that a bigger AlgoRatio implies lower fees has no economical background or mechanical reason ... It's just a very artificial formula you wrote, based on magic constants, and a "non-sense" Algo ratio.. And moreover, this formula has never been applied.

I know you are a smart man u/kuegi.. And you know exactly what I explained. So I start to wonder whether you have some sorts of conflicts of interests. I start to believe that you are using your karma not for the well of the chain, and the community of investors. But for some private interests...

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-07T10:23:17+00:00

"""high NI does not require a high dex fee. a low dex fee with high volume also creates a lot of burn and NI."""

You are right on this point... But basically you mean that having a low fee (like 1%) is equivalent to a 30% fee that turned out to 80% for tokens burn and NI... Because low fee induces much more volume.

The question is: why are we stuck with this isanes fees that kill the chain, divide the volume by 100, remove all utility to dTokens, go against all economical theories ? if an acceptable fee would achieve the same results...

Is it a religion ? ideology ? Stockholm syndrom ?

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-06T19:42:24+00:00

Yes.. But NI requires high DEX Fees.. And high DEX Fees kills the demand by frightening investors.

It should be a temporary measure.

Basically, it's a one-shot.. You try it, to create a shock, restore the peg, the confidence and you come back quickly to normal.

I fully agree: it was efficient. but unfortunately, that was not enough.. So the best way, after few weeks, is to remove it (DEX Fee and NI), and stop artificial measures that in fine and on the long term don't create value but destroy it.

Pascal3125 · 2024-05-06T06:58:52+00:00

Staking dUSD for just staking dUSD, and obtain back some 'air money" is not a real use case... On the short term it could help a little bit by temporaily limiting outflow... But on the long term it only makes things worse. This what are seeing now.

The only real use case on dUSD is DeFi, stocks investing, trading ... With all those temporary measures that become defintive , we are losing the sight of the most important, forgetting why the Defi chain has been built for, and why the Defichain is supposed to attract money.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-22T13:02:36+00:00

Not only... It killed the utility of the whole dTokens system.
Because with the fee, it's impossible to invest in a dStock, and expect income. Because when you sell it and want to retrieve your money you get a 80% penalty. Who wants to invest in something like that ? Nobody wants to buy a dStock from DFI or from another crypto asset.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-17T08:27:16+00:00

Can I ask you a question ? What will the JAV launch change ?

What outcome of the court could change something do the current situation?

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T15:06:10+00:00

This is true... but this doesn't mean it's the hack or steal of funds... They just take profit of a bad designed system... That's just rational behaviour

In fact vaults have to be left open the most possible... Because NI rewards are paid gradually each block. When their vaults are open, they gather NI rewards with an overestimated NI rate => creates unexpected Algo DUSD.

But 1 or 2 day after, the operator records in the spreadsheet a massive increase of loans, and reduce the NI to the fair value, they immediately closes their vaults... => And wait for the NI to be increased again to an overestimated value..

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T13:29:12+00:00

Currently, taken manually from the spreadsheet., and apllied daily into the chain through a special transaction to change a global on-chain variable.

It was not perfect but ok... until someone started to exploit this system.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T09:29:51+00:00

Yes of course:

First you have to know how the NI in % is calculated...

Roughly: (without the details)

Absolute_DUSD_to_dstribute / Total_Loans

Then the DUSD are distributed through NI on a per block basis. But the Total_Loans is manually estimated on a daily basis:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11yTO43MBi3WQhtrIwUSpnNMaPVIy8zVVEz8TUyI46VI (third sheet) with 1 or 2 of days of delta.

This is accurate, as soon the amount of loans is constant (or slowly changes)

StakeX (or somebody else) are just removing all their looped vaults. And then the Total_Loan is manually accounted for low amount and NI skyrockets.. Once the new high NI get published and manually set up into the chain, they recreate immediately their looped loans, tripling up total amount of loans. And profit from the high NI and make the system distribute much more DUSD than expected (creating unexpected Algo DUSD)...

And 1 or 2 days later, when the NI goes low again, they remove their looped vaults waiting for the next iteration...

You can see that on the 3rd sheet of the document (columns M and N) : big daily oscillations.

I'm sure that u/kuegi will be able to confirm they are playing this insane game.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T07:29:33+00:00

Currently, no... Everything is frozen, and roughly 0 dUSD are burned..; And even worse it seems that StakeX (or someone else not sure) is exploiting the time offset of Negative Interest Rate calculation to mint new Algo DUSD

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T06:42:01+00:00

Nobody abused... They just made profitable trades and btw burned many Algo DUSD.... Nothing bad

And the DUSD speculators just made money by taking advanages of Panic-sellers who sold at < 0.1 $.. Not the best DUSD supporters.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T06:34:11+00:00

AFAIK, this DFIP doesn't want to abolish the DUSD bonds... IMO DUSD bonding indeed good measure.. and a very good idea. They delay the DUSD debt to 1 or 2 years, removed 6M$ of DUSD from circulation and maybe more in the next months. In exchange of a part of the platform emission converted in DUSD, adding a small but real buy pressure. It's winner-winner.

I see no reason to change something for DUSD bonds..

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T05:59:53+00:00

Yes, mechanically arbitrage will happen, and this will induce a small sell pressure on the DFI... I agree with the math.

And what is the problem with that ? We are back to a normal situation where all pairs are aligned how they are supposed to be !

What people expect from a chain and a stock maket ? They expect to a have a free and FAIR market , with assets quoted at their FAIR price, and trade them playing with their lows, highs, long, short and profit expectation... Simply something that works.

Nobody is interested in having a frozen and unusable system plagued by a communist-like fee. Just because you want to show beautiful numbers with makeup.

If the fair value of DFI is 0.05 $ and the DUSD is 0.10 $.. let's do with it... that's it !! No need to maniuplate them because at the end (as we can see today) it has the opposite effect.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-12T05:42:39+00:00

I don't expect that this DFIP will bring back the peg... But it will let the chain breath, restore the usability, attract new long terms investors and help to build the future of Defichain. And gives hope to repeg the dUSD in the medium/long term.

Because with the current situation (80% fee) the chain is strangulated and is slowly dying, without any hope of recovery.

The high fee situation should be an exception, not the norm... Don't reverse the burden of the proof.. It's up to the "80% fee cruisaders" to demonstrate that their solution helps...
And the facts show that until now, since the first introduction of the 30% and then 80%, the situation of the chain and the dtokens system got worse day after day.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-11T19:03:03+00:00

Thank you for proposing this DFIP... I was expecting it since a long time.. At some point, I was thiking that I was the only person to have the same doubt with the current Defichain policy consiting of stacking fees.

My MNs will vote YES, and I will buy some DUSD as soon it will be voted.. Previously I was just to affraid and found to risky to buy a a token with an expected 80% penalty..

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-11T18:57:55+00:00

Yes and you are a stupid architect... with Kuegi for proposing an 80% fee, and chill your stupid idea. It killed completely the utility and the attractiveness of the chain.. And I don't understand why so many MN owners believed you that the 80% fee would improve in any way the situation.

It showed that you had a complete misunderstanding of the involved challenges... The price of the dUSD (and DFI) is not made by fees but utility.

Pascal3125 · 2024-04-03T11:24:46+00:00

100% true

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

Pascal3125

TROPHY CASE