ParvezMayar
Ellenőrzött tartalomkészítő
Crypto enthusiast | Exploring, sharing, and earning | Let’s grow together!🤝 | X @Next_GemHunter
Nyitott kereskedés
Kiemelkedően aktív kereskedő
2.3 év
306 Követés
39.2K+ Követők
72.2K+ Kedvelve
6.1K+ Megosztva
Összes
Hivatkozások
Videók
Élő
Rögzítve
⚠️ Concern Regarding CreatorPad Point Accounting on the Dusk Leaderboard.
This is not a complaint about rankings. It is a request for clarity and consistency.
According to the published CreatorPad rules, daily points are capped 105 on the first eligible day (including Square/X follow tasks), and 95 on subsequent days including content, engagement, and trading. Over five days, that places a reasonable ceiling on cumulative points.
However, on the Dusk leaderboard, multiple accounts are showing 500–550+ points within the same five-day window. At the same time, several creators... including myself and others I know personally experienced the opposite issue:
• First-day posts, trades and engagements not counted
• Content meeting eligibility rules but scoring zero
• Accounts with <30 views still accumulating unusually high points
• Daily breakdowns that do not reconcile with visible activity
This creates two problems:
1. The leaderboard becomes mathematically inconsistent with the published system
2. Legitimate creators cannot tell whether the issue is systemic or selective
If point multipliers, bonus logic, or manual adjustments are active, that should be communicated clearly. If there were ingestion delays or backend errors on Day 1, that should be acknowledged and corrected.
CreatorPad works when rules are predictable and applied uniformly. Right now, the Dusk leaderboard suggests otherwise.
Requesting: Confirmation of the actual per-day and cumulative limits
• Clarification on bonus or multiplier mechanics (if any)
• Review of Day-1 ingestion failures for posts, trades, and engagement
Tagging for visibility and clarification:
@Binance Square Official
@Daniel Zou (DZ) 🔶
@Binance Customer Support
@Dusk
This is about fairness and transparency. not individual scores.
@Kaze BNB @LegendMZUAA @Fatima_Tariq @Mavis Evan @Sofia VMare @Crypto-First21 @Crypto PM @Jens_ @maidah_aw
This is not a complaint about rankings. It is a request for clarity and consistency.
According to the published CreatorPad rules, daily points are capped 105 on the first eligible day (including Square/X follow tasks), and 95 on subsequent days including content, engagement, and trading. Over five days, that places a reasonable ceiling on cumulative points.
However, on the Dusk leaderboard, multiple accounts are showing 500–550+ points within the same five-day window. At the same time, several creators... including myself and others I know personally experienced the opposite issue:
• First-day posts, trades and engagements not counted
• Content meeting eligibility rules but scoring zero
• Accounts with <30 views still accumulating unusually high points
• Daily breakdowns that do not reconcile with visible activity
This creates two problems:
1. The leaderboard becomes mathematically inconsistent with the published system
2. Legitimate creators cannot tell whether the issue is systemic or selective
If point multipliers, bonus logic, or manual adjustments are active, that should be communicated clearly. If there were ingestion delays or backend errors on Day 1, that should be acknowledged and corrected.
CreatorPad works when rules are predictable and applied uniformly. Right now, the Dusk leaderboard suggests otherwise.
Requesting: Confirmation of the actual per-day and cumulative limits
• Clarification on bonus or multiplier mechanics (if any)
• Review of Day-1 ingestion failures for posts, trades, and engagement
Tagging for visibility and clarification:
@Binance Square Official
@Daniel Zou (DZ) 🔶
@Binance Customer Support
@Dusk
This is about fairness and transparency. not individual scores.
@Kaze BNB @LegendMZUAA @Fatima_Tariq @Mavis Evan @Sofia VMare @Crypto-First21 @Crypto PM @Jens_ @maidah_aw
Rögzítve
Dear #followers 💛,
yeah… the market’s taking some heavy hits today. $BTC around $91k, $ETH under $3k, #SOL dipping below $130, it feels rough, I know.
But take a breath with me for a second. 🤗
Every time the chart looks like this, people panic fast… and then later say, “Wait, why was I scared?” The last big drawdown looked just as messy, and still, long-term wallets quietly stacked hundreds of thousands of $BTC while everyone else was stressing.
So is today uncomfortable? Of course.
Is it the kind of pressure we’ve seen before? Absolutely.
🤝 And back then, the people who stayed calm ended up thanking themselves.
No hype here, just a reminder, the screen looks bad, but the market underneath isn’t broken. Zoom out a little. Relax your shoulders. Breathe.
We’re still here.
We keep moving. 💞
#BTC90kBreakingPoint #MarketPullback
yeah… the market’s taking some heavy hits today. $BTC around $91k, $ETH under $3k, #SOL dipping below $130, it feels rough, I know.
But take a breath with me for a second. 🤗
Every time the chart looks like this, people panic fast… and then later say, “Wait, why was I scared?” The last big drawdown looked just as messy, and still, long-term wallets quietly stacked hundreds of thousands of $BTC while everyone else was stressing.
So is today uncomfortable? Of course.
Is it the kind of pressure we’ve seen before? Absolutely.
🤝 And back then, the people who stayed calm ended up thanking themselves.
No hype here, just a reminder, the screen looks bad, but the market underneath isn’t broken. Zoom out a little. Relax your shoulders. Breathe.
We’re still here.
We keep moving. 💞
#BTC90kBreakingPoint #MarketPullback
B
SOL/USDT
Ár
130,32
Another infrastructure project just got listed, $FOGO utilizes solana VM for high throughput 💫
Risk models do not ingest throughput.
They ingest timing distributions.
Dusk makes that legible. Settlement timing is not left to "network conditions" or whatever the mempool feels like today. Ratification windows are explicit. Variance is bounded by consensus rules. You can point to the window... not just the outcome.
That becomes important because exposure is not theoretical in institutional flows. It's the gap between legs, the duration of credit risk, the time collateral sits in limbo... the hours ops keeps a position open "just in case'. When timing is fuzzy, desks start writing stories to justify buffers. More margin. More idle capital. More people watching things that should not need watching.
When timing is predictable with Dusk.. risk stops being a narrative argument and turns into math.
Institutions don't love math... they just trust it more than guesses.
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk
They ingest timing distributions.
Dusk makes that legible. Settlement timing is not left to "network conditions" or whatever the mempool feels like today. Ratification windows are explicit. Variance is bounded by consensus rules. You can point to the window... not just the outcome.
That becomes important because exposure is not theoretical in institutional flows. It's the gap between legs, the duration of credit risk, the time collateral sits in limbo... the hours ops keeps a position open "just in case'. When timing is fuzzy, desks start writing stories to justify buffers. More margin. More idle capital. More people watching things that should not need watching.
When timing is predictable with Dusk.. risk stops being a narrative argument and turns into math.
Institutions don't love math... they just trust it more than guesses.
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk
$BDXN did not grind into this level...it snapped there. That kind of vertical expansion usually invites hesitation, and you can see it in the wicks and brief stall under the highs. Still, price is not giving much back. As long as $BDXN holds above the prior push zone, this looks less like a blow-off and more like the market deciding whether it can build a new range up here. 💛
$DOLO had a clean impulse from the 0.04 base and is now digesting gains after the push toward 0.084.
As long as price holds the $0.07–0.072 area, this looks like a healthy pause before a possible continuation. 😉💛
As long as price holds the $0.07–0.072 area, this looks like a healthy pause before a possible continuation. 😉💛
I did not expect storage to change how I think about failure.
Most of the time you plan for crashes retries, migrations... all the dramatic stuff though.
Walrus changes the texture instead of the headline. Failure doesn't arrive as a surprise. Blobs exist inside conditions the network already agreed to. When something slips, it is not a shock or a scramble. It's actually a path the system already accounted for.
That does something subtle to how you build.
You stop sketching escape hatches everywhere.
You stop designing for panic.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Most of the time you plan for crashes retries, migrations... all the dramatic stuff though.
Walrus changes the texture instead of the headline. Failure doesn't arrive as a surprise. Blobs exist inside conditions the network already agreed to. When something slips, it is not a shock or a scramble. It's actually a path the system already accounted for.
That does something subtle to how you build.
You stop sketching escape hatches everywhere.
You stop designing for panic.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Guys, $FOGO is launching in 3 hours, are you excited about this project ?😉
SUIUSDT
Áll. határidős
18X
Long nyitása
Nem realizált PNL
+297.00%
Walrus does not insist storage be permanent.
It insists storage be durable enough to fade into the background.
Fragments shift. Nodes rotate. Months pass. Nothing interesting is supposed to happen in that stretch. When it does not... apps stop contorting themselves just to survive the next cycle.
That stance filters expectations early.
You are not building around heroics or recovery drills.
You're building around the assumption that data will still be there.
That is actually not a guarantee.
It is a constraint the system refuses to relax.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
It insists storage be durable enough to fade into the background.
Fragments shift. Nodes rotate. Months pass. Nothing interesting is supposed to happen in that stretch. When it does not... apps stop contorting themselves just to survive the next cycle.
That stance filters expectations early.
You are not building around heroics or recovery drills.
You're building around the assumption that data will still be there.
That is actually not a guarantee.
It is a constraint the system refuses to relax.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
@Dusk makes a quiet assumption that catches people off guard later... identities do not age well.
Addresses stick around. Roles don't. Someone gets approved an exemption expires a mandate changes... and the address keeps working long after it should have gone cold. That is not an edge case. That's how lists actually fail.
Dusk does not rely on memory. At execution time, the system asks a narrower question.. does this transaction satisfy the rule right now? Credentials either pass or they don't. Nothing "used to be allowed' carries forward.
You usually discover the difference after the fact. When an asset moved and nobody can point to a bad actor.. just a rule that should’ve stopped it.
Address-based gating forgets quietly.
Execution-time checks donot forget at all.
#Dusk $DUSK
Addresses stick around. Roles don't. Someone gets approved an exemption expires a mandate changes... and the address keeps working long after it should have gone cold. That is not an edge case. That's how lists actually fail.
Dusk does not rely on memory. At execution time, the system asks a narrower question.. does this transaction satisfy the rule right now? Credentials either pass or they don't. Nothing "used to be allowed' carries forward.
You usually discover the difference after the fact. When an asset moved and nobody can point to a bad actor.. just a rule that should’ve stopped it.
Address-based gating forgets quietly.
Execution-time checks donot forget at all.
#Dusk $DUSK
$DOLO is doing exactly what strong momentum names usually do after a first expansion... pause, breathe, then continue.
After breaking out from the 0.04 base, price held its pullback cleanly around the mid-0.05s and pushed again. Now it's consolidating just under the recent high near 0.084, which is constructive. As long as $DOLO holds above $0.075–0.077, this looks like continuation rather than exhaustion.
After breaking out from the 0.04 base, price held its pullback cleanly around the mid-0.05s and pushed again. Now it's consolidating just under the recent high near 0.084, which is constructive. As long as $DOLO holds above $0.075–0.077, this looks like continuation rather than exhaustion.
$WAL #Walrus
A lot of decentralized storage systems talk about availability.
Walrus treats it as something that has to be settled.
Once availability is accepted.. It is treated less like app-level belief or a dashboard interpretation. It becomes a network fact agreed to, carried forward and no longer open to negotiation. At that point though, disputes do not vanish... but they narrow. Responsibility stops drifting. Storage starts behaving less like middleware you work around and more like infrastructure you lean on.
You usually notice that difference a bit late.
When something breaks and there is nothing left to debate. @Walrus 🦭/acc
A lot of decentralized storage systems talk about availability.
Walrus treats it as something that has to be settled.
Once availability is accepted.. It is treated less like app-level belief or a dashboard interpretation. It becomes a network fact agreed to, carried forward and no longer open to negotiation. At that point though, disputes do not vanish... but they narrow. Responsibility stops drifting. Storage starts behaving less like middleware you work around and more like infrastructure you lean on.
You usually notice that difference a bit late.
When something breaks and there is nothing left to debate. @Walrus 🦭/acc
Walrus Protocol is built for the way operators actually leave. Not with a crash though. With neglect.
A disk fills a little faster than planned. A process restarts late. Traffic reroutes and never quite comes back. Nothing fails loudly enough to trigger an alarm... but performance thins all the same. @Walrus 🦭/acc treats that slow storage decay as normal and designs routing and recovery to absorb it early... before this turns into an incident.
Overall that changes the trust model. Reliability is not tied to who's still paying attention on a given week. It emerges from redundancy and thresholds doing their job quietly.
You do not trust operators to behave perfectly, to be honest though.
You trust the math to carry the load.
#Walrus $WAL
A disk fills a little faster than planned. A process restarts late. Traffic reroutes and never quite comes back. Nothing fails loudly enough to trigger an alarm... but performance thins all the same. @Walrus 🦭/acc treats that slow storage decay as normal and designs routing and recovery to absorb it early... before this turns into an incident.
Overall that changes the trust model. Reliability is not tied to who's still paying attention on a given week. It emerges from redundancy and thresholds doing their job quietly.
You do not trust operators to behave perfectly, to be honest though.
You trust the math to carry the load.
#Walrus $WAL
B
WALUSDT
Áll. határidős
Lezárva
PNL
+1.68%
Walrus is the kind of infrastructure that does not try to impress you in week one. #Walrus just refuses to become a problem in month six.
Long-lived blobs, quiet repair, coordination kept out of the app's critical path.. the work happens without asking product teams to keep proving the data still exists. Nothing here is tuned for applause or screenshots. It is tuned for the boring stretch where ownership changes, operators rotate and the system is supposed to keep holding anyway.
You usually understand the value late. The first time a migration plan starts reading like a risk memo instead of a "quick refactor". That is when storage stops being a tool you picked… and becomes an assumption you don't want to disturb.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Long-lived blobs, quiet repair, coordination kept out of the app's critical path.. the work happens without asking product teams to keep proving the data still exists. Nothing here is tuned for applause or screenshots. It is tuned for the boring stretch where ownership changes, operators rotate and the system is supposed to keep holding anyway.
You usually understand the value late. The first time a migration plan starts reading like a risk memo instead of a "quick refactor". That is when storage stops being a tool you picked… and becomes an assumption you don't want to disturb.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Thank you @Binance Square Official for solving those extra points issues 🫰🏻
ParvezMayar
--
⚠️ Concern Regarding CreatorPad Point Accounting on the Dusk Leaderboard.
This is not a complaint about rankings. It is a request for clarity and consistency.
According to the published CreatorPad rules, daily points are capped 105 on the first eligible day (including Square/X follow tasks), and 95 on subsequent days including content, engagement, and trading. Over five days, that places a reasonable ceiling on cumulative points.
However, on the Dusk leaderboard, multiple accounts are showing 500–550+ points within the same five-day window. At the same time, several creators... including myself and others I know personally experienced the opposite issue:
• First-day posts, trades and engagements not counted
• Content meeting eligibility rules but scoring zero
• Accounts with <30 views still accumulating unusually high points
• Daily breakdowns that do not reconcile with visible activity
This creates two problems:
1. The leaderboard becomes mathematically inconsistent with the published system
2. Legitimate creators cannot tell whether the issue is systemic or selective
If point multipliers, bonus logic, or manual adjustments are active, that should be communicated clearly. If there were ingestion delays or backend errors on Day 1, that should be acknowledged and corrected.
CreatorPad works when rules are predictable and applied uniformly. Right now, the Dusk leaderboard suggests otherwise.
Requesting: Confirmation of the actual per-day and cumulative limits
• Clarification on bonus or multiplier mechanics (if any)
• Review of Day-1 ingestion failures for posts, trades, and engagement
Tagging for visibility and clarification:
@Binance Square Official
@Daniel Zou (DZ) 🔶
@Binance Customer Support
@Dusk
This is about fairness and transparency. not individual scores.
@Kaze BNB @LegendMZUAA @Fatima_Tariq @Mavis Evan @Sofia VMare @Crypto-First21 @Crypto PM @Jens_ @maidah_aw
This is not a complaint about rankings. It is a request for clarity and consistency.
According to the published CreatorPad rules, daily points are capped 105 on the first eligible day (including Square/X follow tasks), and 95 on subsequent days including content, engagement, and trading. Over five days, that places a reasonable ceiling on cumulative points.
However, on the Dusk leaderboard, multiple accounts are showing 500–550+ points within the same five-day window. At the same time, several creators... including myself and others I know personally experienced the opposite issue:
• First-day posts, trades and engagements not counted
• Content meeting eligibility rules but scoring zero
• Accounts with <30 views still accumulating unusually high points
• Daily breakdowns that do not reconcile with visible activity
This creates two problems:
1. The leaderboard becomes mathematically inconsistent with the published system
2. Legitimate creators cannot tell whether the issue is systemic or selective
If point multipliers, bonus logic, or manual adjustments are active, that should be communicated clearly. If there were ingestion delays or backend errors on Day 1, that should be acknowledged and corrected.
CreatorPad works when rules are predictable and applied uniformly. Right now, the Dusk leaderboard suggests otherwise.
Requesting: Confirmation of the actual per-day and cumulative limits
• Clarification on bonus or multiplier mechanics (if any)
• Review of Day-1 ingestion failures for posts, trades, and engagement
Tagging for visibility and clarification:
@Binance Square Official
@Daniel Zou (DZ) 🔶
@Binance Customer Support
@Dusk
This is about fairness and transparency. not individual scores.
@Kaze BNB @LegendMZUAA @Fatima_Tariq @Mavis Evan @Sofia VMare @Crypto-First21 @Crypto PM @Jens_ @maidah_aw
#Dusk @Dusk
There is always a gap between "this happened' and "everyone agrees it happened".
You see it when a desk pulls logs after the fact. One system says yes. Another says not yet. Someone starts stitching timelines together... trying to prove a past the system never fully agreed on. That's when arguments start multiplying.
Dusk does not leave that space open. Outcomes are carried through consensus itself attested, ratified and remembered as state. Not reconstructed. Not reinterpreted later.
It is actually not about making things more visible.
It's about making them harder to dispute.
Systems without shared memory keep revisiting the same moment.
Systems like Dusk with it don't linger there.
They just… move.
$DUSK
There is always a gap between "this happened' and "everyone agrees it happened".
You see it when a desk pulls logs after the fact. One system says yes. Another says not yet. Someone starts stitching timelines together... trying to prove a past the system never fully agreed on. That's when arguments start multiplying.
Dusk does not leave that space open. Outcomes are carried through consensus itself attested, ratified and remembered as state. Not reconstructed. Not reinterpreted later.
It is actually not about making things more visible.
It's about making them harder to dispute.
Systems without shared memory keep revisiting the same moment.
Systems like Dusk with it don't linger there.
They just… move.
$DUSK
I've been burned by systems that said a block was "done" and really meant 'probably'..
Dusk is explicit about the line. Blocks can move until they are ratified. Once they are they do not get reinterpreted later. No quiet reorg logic. No post-hoc explanations. You either crossed the boundary or you did not, that's all.
That difference stops sounding academic the first time a trade gets booked, reported... then has to be unwound because consensus changed its mind. That's not a technical glitch. That is a credibility hit.
Once a block is treated as "final enough", nobody agrees on where responsibility actually ended.
That's usually when disputes start costing real money. @Dusk
#Dusk $DUSK
Dusk is explicit about the line. Blocks can move until they are ratified. Once they are they do not get reinterpreted later. No quiet reorg logic. No post-hoc explanations. You either crossed the boundary or you did not, that's all.
That difference stops sounding academic the first time a trade gets booked, reported... then has to be unwound because consensus changed its mind. That's not a technical glitch. That is a credibility hit.
Once a block is treated as "final enough", nobody agrees on where responsibility actually ended.
That's usually when disputes start costing real money. @Dusk
#Dusk $DUSK
$DCR already did the hard part. The move from the mid-teens to high $20s was impulsive, and what you’re seeing now is price sitting near the highs rather than rushing back into the range. That usually points to acceptance, not exhaustion.
As long as $DCR holds above the prior breakout zone, this reads more like continuation being negotiated than a move that’s finished.
As long as $DCR holds above the prior breakout zone, this reads more like continuation being negotiated than a move that’s finished.
$DASH This looks less like a top and more like digestion. The vertical move already happened; now price is chopping just under the highs, which usually means the market is figuring out how much of the move to keep, not whether to erase it..
BTCUSDT
Áll. határidős
50X
Long nyitása
Nem realizált PNL
+496.00%
A további tartalmak felfedezéséhez jelentkezz be