ParvezMayar
Verified Creator
Open Trade
High-Frequency Trader
2.3 Years
Crypto enthusiast | Exploring, sharing, and earning | Let’s grow together!🤝 | X @Next_GemHunter
304 Following
39.1K+ Followers
71.8K+ Liked
6.1K+ Shared
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
Honestly… I kind of feel bad for $SUI right now. It really doesn’t deserve to be sitting under $2 with the ecosystem and utility it has.
But one thing I’m sure about, $SUI won’t stay below $2 for long. 💪🏻
If someone’s looking for a solid long-term hold, something you buy and forget for a while… $SUI makes a lot of sense.
But one thing I’m sure about, $SUI won’t stay below $2 for long. 💪🏻
If someone’s looking for a solid long-term hold, something you buy and forget for a while… $SUI makes a lot of sense.
PINNED
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
Price
130.32
Walrus sits in that class of infrastructure you don’t really notice at first. @Walrus 🦭/acc doesn't rush to prove itself. Blobs are assumed to stick around. Repairs happen without turning into incidents. Availability in Walrus Protocol does not ask for someone to be watching a dashboard all the time.
Early on, that restraint can feel underwhelming. Nothing spikes. Nothing markets itself. But the longer a system runs... the more that reliability starts making some sense. The first time you realize swapping it out would introduce risk instead of reducing it, the value becomes clearer.. not as a feature, but as a dependency you not no longer eager to disturb.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Early on, that restraint can feel underwhelming. Nothing spikes. Nothing markets itself. But the longer a system runs... the more that reliability starts making some sense. The first time you realize swapping it out would introduce risk instead of reducing it, the value becomes clearer.. not as a feature, but as a dependency you not no longer eager to disturb.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
WALUSDT
Perp
40X
Opening Short
Unrealized PNL
-7.00%
#Dusk
Bunch of blockchain networks try to enforce good behavior by threatening validators with slashing.
Dusk Protocol takes a different route and puts the weight on accountability instead.
Stake can unwind without punitive penalties, but validator behavior does not disappear with it. Actions are still visible at the consensus layer. If something goes wrong, it's recorded, attributable... and can not be quietly washed away by exiting early. Dusk's That approach changes how incentives work over time. Less fear-driven compliance, more pressure to behave consistently if you plan to stay relevant.
Not every security problem needs a hammer .
Some systems stay honest because they remember.
$DUSK @Dusk
Bunch of blockchain networks try to enforce good behavior by threatening validators with slashing.
Dusk Protocol takes a different route and puts the weight on accountability instead.
Stake can unwind without punitive penalties, but validator behavior does not disappear with it. Actions are still visible at the consensus layer. If something goes wrong, it's recorded, attributable... and can not be quietly washed away by exiting early. Dusk's That approach changes how incentives work over time. Less fear-driven compliance, more pressure to behave consistently if you plan to stay relevant.
Not every security problem needs a hammer .
Some systems stay honest because they remember.
$DUSK @Dusk
DUSKUSDT
Perp
29X
Opening Short
Unrealized PNL
+50.00%
$DASH went straight from the mid $30s to high-50s with barely a pause... strong breakout energy, and now it is just sitting near the highs instead of dumping, which usually means buyers aren't rushing to exit yet. 💛
DUSKUSDT
Perp
29X
Opening Short
Unrealized PNL
+54.00%
Must read and repost if you are a creator and participating in #creatorpad 😉
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:
@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_ @Crypto_Alchemy
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:
@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_ @Crypto_Alchemy
Assets not usually fail at issuance.
They fail at other times, when the rules move and the system can not move with them.
On Dusk foundation though, eligibility and transfer conditions live with the instrument itself, not with whatever venue happens to host it. With @Dusk when requirements shift... tighter access, amended disclosures, new constraints the asset absorbs the change. No reissuance. No public reshuffling just to stay compliant.
Markets don not stop because policy changed on a Tuesday.
Infrastructure that expects that reality tends to hold up longer.
#Dusk $DUSK
They fail at other times, when the rules move and the system can not move with them.
On Dusk foundation though, eligibility and transfer conditions live with the instrument itself, not with whatever venue happens to host it. With @Dusk when requirements shift... tighter access, amended disclosures, new constraints the asset absorbs the change. No reissuance. No public reshuffling just to stay compliant.
Markets don not stop because policy changed on a Tuesday.
Infrastructure that expects that reality tends to hold up longer.
#Dusk $DUSK
⚠️ 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:
@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_ @Crypto_Alchemy
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:
@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_ @Crypto_Alchemy
@Dusk
Zero-knowledge on Dusk foundation is not about making activity disappear.
It is about deciding when evidence is allowed to exist.
Execution stays private, but disclosure is wired into the workflow itself. Proofs surface only when a defined trigger is hit.. an audit, a dispute, a compliance request and they surface once, to the party entitled to see them. There is no gradual leakage through side channels and no ambient visibility that accumulates over time.
Dusk's that uniqueness is important. Privacy that leaks slowly becomes interpretation risk.
Disclosure that is intentional becomes process.
That is not privacy as optics.
It is actually privacy as a disclosure protocol.
#Dusk $DUSK
Zero-knowledge on Dusk foundation is not about making activity disappear.
It is about deciding when evidence is allowed to exist.
Execution stays private, but disclosure is wired into the workflow itself. Proofs surface only when a defined trigger is hit.. an audit, a dispute, a compliance request and they surface once, to the party entitled to see them. There is no gradual leakage through side channels and no ambient visibility that accumulates over time.
Dusk's that uniqueness is important. Privacy that leaks slowly becomes interpretation risk.
Disclosure that is intentional becomes process.
That is not privacy as optics.
It is actually privacy as a disclosure protocol.
#Dusk $DUSK
Clearing is where a lot of blockchains quietly cheat.
Dusk foundation doesn't leave that to apps. Settlement lands on DuskDS, with attestations that pin an execution outcome to one final state. No shadow clearing layer. No "we'll reconcile it later" logic hiding in middleware. If it is not ratified, it did not happen. @Dusk
That difference shows up the moment assets become obligations instead of just fills on a screen. You don't argue about what 'should' have settled. You point to what did.
Clearing first. Everything else is downstream.
#Dusk $DUSK
Dusk foundation doesn't leave that to apps. Settlement lands on DuskDS, with attestations that pin an execution outcome to one final state. No shadow clearing layer. No "we'll reconcile it later" logic hiding in middleware. If it is not ratified, it did not happen. @Dusk
That difference shows up the moment assets become obligations instead of just fills on a screen. You don't argue about what 'should' have settled. You point to what did.
Clearing first. Everything else is downstream.
#Dusk $DUSK
$DOLO pushed hard off the 0.04 base, topped near 0.075... and now it's cooling around 0.06, pullback looks controlled so far, more like digestion after a strong move than a full unwind. 😉
DOLOUSDT
Perp
8X
Opening Short
Unrealized PNL
+7.00%
$PLAY ripped out of the 0.04 base, pushed cleanly into the 0.06–0.07 zone, and now it's just going sideways up here... looks like price is holding gains rather than rushing to give them back.
Running nodes teaches you this the hard way... stability is a story you tell yourself after the fact. In practice, capacity drifts, operators disappear.. and nobody files a ticket on the way out.
Walrus does not fight that at all. #Walrus prices and coordinates around absence. Availability is not earned by being perfect... it is maintained by thresholds that assume someone won't show up. That changes the failure mode. Things donnot snap. They thin. And thinning is survivable.
That is the difference between storage that demos well and storage you’re still paying for a year later.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL
Walrus does not fight that at all. #Walrus prices and coordinates around absence. Availability is not earned by being perfect... it is maintained by thresholds that assume someone won't show up. That changes the failure mode. Things donnot snap. They thin. And thinning is survivable.
That is the difference between storage that demos well and storage you’re still paying for a year later.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL
Walrus Protocol is careful about where storage responsibility actually lives at. @Walrus 🦭/acc does not collapse storage into execution logic... and it doesn't treat storage as an external concern that applications are expected to paper over later.
Coordination is handled on Sui, while data distribution is handled separately, by design. That separation is what is important because execution systems optimized for throughput tend to inherit storage fragility when the boundaries aren't explicit.
By keeping those layers distinct, Walrus reduces the chance that high-frequency execution paths quietly absorb failure modes they were never built to tolerate. The practical result is not speed or spectacle. It't actually a system that composes more predictably, where storage assumptions stay stable as applications scale.
#Walrus $WAL
Coordination is handled on Sui, while data distribution is handled separately, by design. That separation is what is important because execution systems optimized for throughput tend to inherit storage fragility when the boundaries aren't explicit.
By keeping those layers distinct, Walrus reduces the chance that high-frequency execution paths quietly absorb failure modes they were never built to tolerate. The practical result is not speed or spectacle. It't actually a system that composes more predictably, where storage assumptions stay stable as applications scale.
#Walrus $WAL
I do not worry about storage when I'm shipping fast. I worry about it later... months out when the edge cases resurface and nobody remembers why a workaround exists. That is usually when blobs start feeling fragile.
What's different with Walrus Protocol though is that data is not treated like a temporary artifact you'll clean up later. Blobs are assumed to outlive teams, deployments, even validator sets. Ownership changes, rotation happens, time passes... and the data is still meant to be there without ceremony.
That assumption from Walrus, changes your planning.
You stop designing escape hatches and migration paths before the product is even live.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
What's different with Walrus Protocol though is that data is not treated like a temporary artifact you'll clean up later. Blobs are assumed to outlive teams, deployments, even validator sets. Ownership changes, rotation happens, time passes... and the data is still meant to be there without ceremony.
That assumption from Walrus, changes your planning.
You stop designing escape hatches and migration paths before the product is even live.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
$DASH came out of the $36–37 base with a clean impulse into the mid-40s, and the pause near 46 looks more like digestion after expansion than sellers stepping in. 💛
Gouys.... $DUSK has already done the heavy lifting... strong push from the 0.05s into 0.08, and now it’s just sitting near the highs around 0.077, holding rather than unwinding, which usually says buyers are not in a hurry to leave.
B
DUSKUSDT
Perp
Closed
PNL
+25.21%
Walrus and the Argument That Starts When Everyone Says "Data"
Walrus shows up when a team is already a little nervous about what "data' means in their stack. Not tweets. Not metadata. Real blobs. The kind that make your product feel heavy the moment you stop pretending bandwidth is infinite.
In a call, someone will say it like a verdict... "The data was available".
I've learned to treat that sentence like a smoke alarm. It only goes off when someone is trying to collapse two different problems into one comforting word.
Sometimes 'available' just means a user can fetch the blob while the network is being normal and annoying. Pieces drift. Nodes churn. Repair work exists in the background like gravity. If the blob comes back anyway, nobody claps. They just keep shipping. If it comes back inconsistently, nobody writes a manifesto either. They just start adding rails. Caches. Fallbacks. Little escape hatches that become permanent because support doesn’t accept philosophy as a fix.
That is what Walrus Protocol gets judged on. Not "is it decentralized". Whether it stays boring when the system is not in a good mood.
Other times 'available" is about something colder... can anyone verify a rollup's story without asking permission. This isn't about a user waiting for an image to load. The adversary isn't churn. It is withholding. A party deciding the data exists somewhere, but not for you, not now, unless you trust them.
If that is your threat model, slow is annoying but survivable. Hidden is not.
Teams confuse these because both problems wear the same badge. "Data availability". It sounds clean. It’s not. It’s a shortcut word teams use when nobody wants to name the actual failure they’re scared of.
Calm weeks let you get away with that.
Stress doesn't.
When it is a storage incident, the embarrassment is quiet and operational. You don’t 'lose' the blob in a dramatic way. You get the weaker failure first.. variance. Tail latency that fattens. Repairs that compete with reads at the wrong time. A blob that is technically recoverable but starts feeling conditional. The product team does not argue about cryptography. They argue about whether they can launch without babysitting storage.
When it's a verification incident, the embarrassment is uglier. It is not "it loaded late". It’s "can anyone independently reconstruct what happened." If the answer is "not unless we trust the sequencer", you did not have availability in the only sense that mattered. You had a promise.
Walrus does not need to be dragged into that second fight. It't not built to win it. It not built to make large objects survive the first fight... the one where the network keeps moving and users keep clicking anyway.
And DA layers donnot need to pretend they're storage. Publishing bytes for verifiers is not the same job as keeping blobs usable for real applications. One is about not being held hostage. The other is about not turning your support desk into a retry loop.
Mix them up, and you don’t get a dramatic blow-up. You just fail the wrong audit first. #Walrus $WAL @WalrusProtocol
In a call, someone will say it like a verdict... "The data was available".
I've learned to treat that sentence like a smoke alarm. It only goes off when someone is trying to collapse two different problems into one comforting word.
Sometimes 'available' just means a user can fetch the blob while the network is being normal and annoying. Pieces drift. Nodes churn. Repair work exists in the background like gravity. If the blob comes back anyway, nobody claps. They just keep shipping. If it comes back inconsistently, nobody writes a manifesto either. They just start adding rails. Caches. Fallbacks. Little escape hatches that become permanent because support doesn’t accept philosophy as a fix.
That is what Walrus Protocol gets judged on. Not "is it decentralized". Whether it stays boring when the system is not in a good mood.
Other times 'available" is about something colder... can anyone verify a rollup's story without asking permission. This isn't about a user waiting for an image to load. The adversary isn't churn. It is withholding. A party deciding the data exists somewhere, but not for you, not now, unless you trust them.
If that is your threat model, slow is annoying but survivable. Hidden is not.
Teams confuse these because both problems wear the same badge. "Data availability". It sounds clean. It’s not. It’s a shortcut word teams use when nobody wants to name the actual failure they’re scared of.
Calm weeks let you get away with that.
Stress doesn't.
When it is a storage incident, the embarrassment is quiet and operational. You don’t 'lose' the blob in a dramatic way. You get the weaker failure first.. variance. Tail latency that fattens. Repairs that compete with reads at the wrong time. A blob that is technically recoverable but starts feeling conditional. The product team does not argue about cryptography. They argue about whether they can launch without babysitting storage.
When it's a verification incident, the embarrassment is uglier. It is not "it loaded late". It’s "can anyone independently reconstruct what happened." If the answer is "not unless we trust the sequencer", you did not have availability in the only sense that mattered. You had a promise.
Walrus does not need to be dragged into that second fight. It't not built to win it. It not built to make large objects survive the first fight... the one where the network keeps moving and users keep clicking anyway.
And DA layers donnot need to pretend they're storage. Publishing bytes for verifiers is not the same job as keeping blobs usable for real applications. One is about not being held hostage. The other is about not turning your support desk into a retry loop.
Mix them up, and you don’t get a dramatic blow-up. You just fail the wrong audit first. #Walrus $WAL @WalrusProtocol
Only buying, no selling... Because i know $SUI will be above $5 very soon 😉
S
DOLOUSDT
Perp
Closed
PNL
+11.65%
Yess... $DOLO dumping exactly i said.
ParvezMayar
--
$DOLO has seen enough of upward momentum, it's time for a massive dump now 😉
Login to explore more contents