ParvezMayar
Verified Creator
Crypto enthusiast | Exploring, sharing, and earning | Let’s grow together!🤝 | X @Next_GemHunter
Open Trade
USD1 Holder
High-Frequency Trader
2.3 Years
312 Following
40.3K+ Followers
74.2K+ Liked
6.2K+ Shared
All
Quotes
Videos
Live
PINNED
⚠️ 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 @fatimabebo1034 @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 @fatimabebo1034 @Mavis Evan @Sofia VMare @Crypto-First21 @Crypto PM @Jens_ @maidah_aw
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
Data becomes dangerous when it outlives intent.
Walrus does not let intent dissolve quietly. Persistence is bounded by responsibility, not convenience. When data shows up later... the question isn’t "can we fetch it?" but 'was it meant to still matter?"
That distinction shows up late.
And usually in writing.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Walrus does not let intent dissolve quietly. Persistence is bounded by responsibility, not convenience. When data shows up later... the question isn’t "can we fetch it?" but 'was it meant to still matter?"
That distinction shows up late.
And usually in writing.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
I used to trust systems that let you "explain it later".
They always do... right up until the explanation has to hold.
On Dusk, credentials are checked at execution. Not cached. Not remembered. If the rule doesn't hold in that moment, the state just does not advance. No partial settle. No polite pending to argue with.
You do no notice that constraint on good days.
You notice it when nothing clears... and there’s no Dusk artifact to negotiate with.
#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK
They always do... right up until the explanation has to hold.
On Dusk, credentials are checked at execution. Not cached. Not remembered. If the rule doesn't hold in that moment, the state just does not advance. No partial settle. No polite pending to argue with.
You do no notice that constraint on good days.
You notice it when nothing clears... and there’s no Dusk artifact to negotiate with.
#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK
I have been paged for storage incidents that turned out to be policy gaps.
Walrus narrows that space. Data is not alive because nobody stopped it. It's alive because someone committed to it under conditions that don't change at 3 a.m.
That does not eliminate alerts.
@Walrus 🦭/acc changes which ones are worth answering.
#Walrus $WAL
Walrus narrows that space. Data is not alive because nobody stopped it. It's alive because someone committed to it under conditions that don't change at 3 a.m.
That does not eliminate alerts.
@Walrus 🦭/acc changes which ones are worth answering.
#Walrus $WAL
$AUCTION ran straight from $5 to $7 and is now sitting around $6.6, which looks like pause after a fast repricing rather than a clean reversal yet.
$NOM has been unstoppable with more than a 100% pump and looks like just pulling back slightly 👀
$ZKC cooled off after the fast push to $0.21 and is now sitting around $0.18, which is more like digestion after expansion than immediate exhaustion.
The first thing everyone asks for after an incident isn't intent.
It is proof that survived consensus.
On Dusk foundation, that proof is narrow by design. If a state change never produced a committee attestation.... it never becomes evidence later. No reconstruction. No timeline patched together from logs and memory.
That is unforgiving when the certificate you want doesn't exist.
It is also the moment the argument ends.
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk
It is proof that survived consensus.
On Dusk foundation, that proof is narrow by design. If a state change never produced a committee attestation.... it never becomes evidence later. No reconstruction. No timeline patched together from logs and memory.
That is unforgiving when the certificate you want doesn't exist.
It is also the moment the argument ends.
#Dusk $DUSK @Dusk
Inherited systems fail where assumptions were never written down.
Walrus makes storage assumptions explicit early.m how long data is meant to persist, who owns that decision and what happens when teams change. Dependencies don't quietly spread under silence.
Once those assumptions are visible, shortcuts stop blending in.
They start looking like decisions someone will have to defend.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Walrus makes storage assumptions explicit early.m how long data is meant to persist, who owns that decision and what happens when teams change. Dependencies don't quietly spread under silence.
Once those assumptions are visible, shortcuts stop blending in.
They start looking like decisions someone will have to defend.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
@Dusk $DUSK #Dusk
A lot of systems survive on habits:
roles that never quite end
approvals everyone assumes still count
access that outlives its reason
Dusk layer-1 built for regulated finance does not carry those forward.
When state tries to move... permissions are checked again. Not refreshed. Not interpreted. Checked.
If the credential on Dusk doesn't hold now, nothing clears.
No decay curve.
No memory.
A lot of systems survive on habits:
roles that never quite end
approvals everyone assumes still count
access that outlives its reason
Dusk layer-1 built for regulated finance does not carry those forward.
When state tries to move... permissions are checked again. Not refreshed. Not interpreted. Checked.
If the credential on Dusk doesn't hold now, nothing clears.
No decay curve.
No memory.
Nothing leaked in Storage.
That is what made the review uncomfortable.
The data was still there, still retrievable, still behaving exactly as before. The question wasn’t "did it break?' It was "who was allowed to keep it alive this long?"
Walrus forces that question early. Walrus protocol believes Persistence does not inherit permission by default.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
That is what made the review uncomfortable.
The data was still there, still retrievable, still behaving exactly as before. The question wasn’t "did it break?' It was "who was allowed to keep it alive this long?"
Walrus forces that question early. Walrus protocol believes Persistence does not inherit permission by default.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
On Vanar Chain... the break doesn't show up as an error.
A live game session stays open. State keeps advancing. A 'minor' update ships mid-flow because live ops says it is safe. No restart. No warning. The next action commits against Vanar's on-chain game state that already moved.
Progress saves.
Support hears nothing.
Later, two players swear the same moment happened differently on Vanar.
Who decided the session boundary?
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanarchain
A live game session stays open. State keeps advancing. A 'minor' update ships mid-flow because live ops says it is safe. No restart. No warning. The next action commits against Vanar's on-chain game state that already moved.
Progress saves.
Support hears nothing.
Later, two players swear the same moment happened differently on Vanar.
Who decided the session boundary?
#Vanar $VANRY @Vanarchain
Plasma does not fail loudly here.
It answers late.
Plasma Network's Gasless USDT removes the pause before the second submit. One tap did not close, so the client retries. Now infra is staring at two tx hashes, one balance change and a user insisting they paid once. They did.
Remove friction and you remove hesitation. If PlasmaBFT sub-second finality doesn't close the loop fast enough, retries turn into duplicates.
It hasn't closed yet.
They are about to tap again. @Plasma $XPL #plasma
#Plasma
It answers late.
Plasma Network's Gasless USDT removes the pause before the second submit. One tap did not close, so the client retries. Now infra is staring at two tx hashes, one balance change and a user insisting they paid once. They did.
Remove friction and you remove hesitation. If PlasmaBFT sub-second finality doesn't close the loop fast enough, retries turn into duplicates.
It hasn't closed yet.
They are about to tap again. @Plasma $XPL #plasma
#Plasma
#Dusk @Dusk $DUSK
By the time review starts... the room already split.
A screenshot timeline.
An indexer replay.
A dashboard 'final' that isn't the same kind of final.
Dusk leaves you one place to stand... what the committee ratified. No certificate, no settled state, no matter how clean the reconstructed story looks.
So the argument does not evolve.
It just stops.
By the time review starts... the room already split.
A screenshot timeline.
An indexer replay.
A dashboard 'final' that isn't the same kind of final.
Dusk leaves you one place to stand... what the committee ratified. No certificate, no settled state, no matter how clean the reconstructed story looks.
So the argument does not evolve.
It just stops.
$DUSK is bouncing back after the long fade, with price reclaiming the $0.19 area...not explosive, just fresh bids showing up after the correction worked itself out.
$NOM went from $0.0065 to 0.015 in one straight push and price holding near 0.015 tells you this was momentum-driven rather than a slow rebuild... now it’s about whether it can stay here without slipping back into the prior range. 💛
Walrus assumes the network will keep moving.
Nodes leave. Capacity shifts. Interest fades. None of that is treated as an exception. Storage commitments are expected to hold while participation rearranges itself underneath.
Most systems hope churn behaves.
Walrus prices for it.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Nodes leave. Capacity shifts. Interest fades. None of that is treated as an exception. Storage commitments are expected to hold while participation rearranges itself underneath.
Most systems hope churn behaves.
Walrus prices for it.
@Walrus 🦭/acc #Walrus $WAL
Dusk: Dashboards That Teach Operators When Not to Act
Dusk looks safest when nothing asks for attention.
The liveness panel stays green. Dusk Network's Attestations keep landing inside the window. Committees rotate without friction. The numbers refresh and agree with themselves also. If you are on call... that agreement is calming. It tells you what not to do.
People stop hovering.
The dashboard becomes the room. If it doesn't twitch, nobody does. A stalled alert would justify curiosity. A spike would earn a question. Flat lines don't invite either. They reward staying put.
On Dusk, the Moonlight view stays intentionally narrow. Review safe. Shareable. It shows what cleared, not what almost didn't. Over time, operators learn the edges of that view better than the system behind it. They learn what deserves escalation and what does not... based on what the dashboard can show them without reopening scope.
It also becomes visible in behavior. Fewer manual checks. Shorter handovers. "Looks normal" becomes a sufficient sentence. Someone drops a green screenshot in the thread and that is the whole argument. When something feels off but nothing signals it, the feeling loses. There's no Dusk artifact to attach it to. No metric that would survive review.
The chain keeps finalizing... and it starts to feel like permission.
Correctness buys calm. Green charts buy consensus. Then they start buying avoidance. You don't widen visibility when the surface has never contradicted you. Why ask a second question when the first one always comes back clean?
A subtle shift happens then. If it stays quiet, escalation feels irresponsible. If you dig anyway, you're the one creating noise. Someone links the runbook section on "Dusk's scope expansion," drops a ticket ID and the thread goes quiet. "Don't reopen scope for vibes", someone writes, half-joking and nobody pushes back.
Later, when someone asks why a risk was not noticed earlier, the answer is honest and useless... everything looked fine. The metrics weren't lying. They just weren't built for imagination.
Dusk didn't hide anything. It showed exactly what it promised to show. The illusion comes from what repeated visibility does to judgment. When safety is measured by stability, curiosity starts to look like a failure mode.
The system keeps producing valid states. Operators keep trusting the surface. And the dangerous part goes by like any other green interval.... because nothing on the screen made it defensible to slow down. #Dusk
@Dusk $DUSK
The liveness panel stays green. Dusk Network's Attestations keep landing inside the window. Committees rotate without friction. The numbers refresh and agree with themselves also. If you are on call... that agreement is calming. It tells you what not to do.
People stop hovering.
The dashboard becomes the room. If it doesn't twitch, nobody does. A stalled alert would justify curiosity. A spike would earn a question. Flat lines don't invite either. They reward staying put.
On Dusk, the Moonlight view stays intentionally narrow. Review safe. Shareable. It shows what cleared, not what almost didn't. Over time, operators learn the edges of that view better than the system behind it. They learn what deserves escalation and what does not... based on what the dashboard can show them without reopening scope.
It also becomes visible in behavior. Fewer manual checks. Shorter handovers. "Looks normal" becomes a sufficient sentence. Someone drops a green screenshot in the thread and that is the whole argument. When something feels off but nothing signals it, the feeling loses. There's no Dusk artifact to attach it to. No metric that would survive review.
The chain keeps finalizing... and it starts to feel like permission.
Correctness buys calm. Green charts buy consensus. Then they start buying avoidance. You don't widen visibility when the surface has never contradicted you. Why ask a second question when the first one always comes back clean?
A subtle shift happens then. If it stays quiet, escalation feels irresponsible. If you dig anyway, you're the one creating noise. Someone links the runbook section on "Dusk's scope expansion," drops a ticket ID and the thread goes quiet. "Don't reopen scope for vibes", someone writes, half-joking and nobody pushes back.
Later, when someone asks why a risk was not noticed earlier, the answer is honest and useless... everything looked fine. The metrics weren't lying. They just weren't built for imagination.
Dusk didn't hide anything. It showed exactly what it promised to show. The illusion comes from what repeated visibility does to judgment. When safety is measured by stability, curiosity starts to look like a failure mode.
The system keeps producing valid states. Operators keep trusting the surface. And the dangerous part goes by like any other green interval.... because nothing on the screen made it defensible to slow down. #Dusk
@Dusk $DUSK
Walrus and the File Everyone Assumed Was Still There
The first sign wasn’t an alert.
It was a fetch request against Walrus that returned nothing.
A blob tied to an esports archive. Paid for months ago.
Not active footage. Old material. Scrims, raw cuts, moments that only matter when someone suddenly needs them again.
The bytes weren’t corrupted.
They weren’t missing.
The availability window had already expired.
That distinction is easy to miss when you’re used to storage that fades quietly. On Walrus, availability doesn’t erode. It ends. And when it does, the system doesn’t weigh intent or history. It just stops recognizing the obligation.
Everything before that point looked normal. Uploads cleared. Test retrievals worked. Dashboards stayed calm. No one had a reason to look closely until a downstream dependency surfaced... a request tied to a date, a clip tied to a season, a reference someone assumed was still retrievable.
It wasn’t.
That’s when teams slow down.
Not because something “broke,” but because the failure doesn’t look like one. It looks like a closed door you didn’t realize had a timer. The receipt doesn’t clear. There’s nothing to appeal. No partial credit for confidence.
You start seeing small shifts after that.
Retention periods get shorter.
Esports data stops being treated as inert history and starts getting tagged with owners.
Someone is explicitly responsible for renewing, or letting it go.
Not as a policy change. As damage control.
Walrus doesn’t soften this moment. It doesn’t escalate it either. It just records what cleared and what didn’t, and moves forward. Other systems blur that edge until it turns into a crisis. Here, it shows up earlier...as silence.
Most teams don’t need an outage to learn from it.
They just need one file they were sure was still there.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus
It was a fetch request against Walrus that returned nothing.
A blob tied to an esports archive. Paid for months ago.
Not active footage. Old material. Scrims, raw cuts, moments that only matter when someone suddenly needs them again.
The bytes weren’t corrupted.
They weren’t missing.
The availability window had already expired.
That distinction is easy to miss when you’re used to storage that fades quietly. On Walrus, availability doesn’t erode. It ends. And when it does, the system doesn’t weigh intent or history. It just stops recognizing the obligation.
Everything before that point looked normal. Uploads cleared. Test retrievals worked. Dashboards stayed calm. No one had a reason to look closely until a downstream dependency surfaced... a request tied to a date, a clip tied to a season, a reference someone assumed was still retrievable.
It wasn’t.
That’s when teams slow down.
Not because something “broke,” but because the failure doesn’t look like one. It looks like a closed door you didn’t realize had a timer. The receipt doesn’t clear. There’s nothing to appeal. No partial credit for confidence.
You start seeing small shifts after that.
Retention periods get shorter.
Esports data stops being treated as inert history and starts getting tagged with owners.
Someone is explicitly responsible for renewing, or letting it go.
Not as a policy change. As damage control.
Walrus doesn’t soften this moment. It doesn’t escalate it either. It just records what cleared and what didn’t, and moves forward. Other systems blur that edge until it turns into a crisis. Here, it shows up earlier...as silence.
Most teams don’t need an outage to learn from it.
They just need one file they were sure was still there.
@Walrus 🦭/acc $WAL #Walrus
Login to explore more contents