Most of crypto runs on "trust me bro." I got tired of it — so the last couple of years I stopped believing and learned to check everything myself, straight off the chain. I put all of it into one file: an interactive guide that teaches you to read PulseChain with your own hands. AI does the grunt work, you run the commands. By the end you can: → trace any wallet's flows, in and out → tell real value from mirror value — what actually has liquidity vs what just looks big → price a token against a live pool, not its face number → check who really controls a contract → verify any "trust me" before you believe it One file. Runs offline. No wallet connect, nothing to sign. Real commands, zero theory and lots of explanations. Comment "Inevitable" and I'll send it. 🐳 — @NineIronCapital — this one's personal. You're the reason I went from "I have to believe what people tell me" to "I'll just check it myself." You lit that fuse. And real talk — thank you for the patience. Every time the AI slop got unbearable and I was running in circles, you still took the time to nudge me back in the right direction instead of writing me off. That's rare, and I don't forget it. Everything below is downstream of your example. 🐳 — PulseChain won't win on hype. It wins by becoming the most independent chain in the space — run by the best-educated cypherpunks in it. That's the bet. That's the mission. @LibertySwapFi this is the energy. Let's make some noise. 🫡

12 posts on what the paper says. This one is what I think. Look at what is confirmed on chain: → the copied Across bridge: new owner → the copied Arbitrum rollup: admin paths changed, validator whitelist switched off, 18 stakers where there were two → a copied GnosisDAO Safe: from 3-of-5 to 1-of-6 → the copied Aave V2 market: new owner of the provider A bridge. A rollup. A DAO treasury. A lending market. Four completely different systems, each with its own architecture, its own permission model, its own traps. My read: this is not weekend-developer work. To do this you have to know every one of these protocols down to the last storage slot. Which key controls what. Which function is still open on a copied chain. In which order to move. No noise. Surgical. The earliest of these changes dates from 21 May 2023, days after the fork. The latest are from 2026. That is years of preparation and patience. I don't believe this is one person. I think this is a team, maybe several, and extraordinarily good ones. The paper does not establish who they are or whether it is one hand. Neither do I. But whoever made these changes understands these systems better than almost anyone. Take it seriously. PROOF OF READ · MY TAKE

463 pages. Eleven posts. Here is all of it in ten sentences. 1. PulseChain copied Ethereum in May 2023, and with it DAI. The copy, pDAI, kept the name but not the backing. 2. The paper describes how the copied systems COULD be used to bring pDAI to a target price and hold it: buy below, offer at the target, refill. 3. It names nine parts for that, from a private second chain as a source of money or instructions to many separate wallets doing the buying. 4. Some of those parts can be seen on chain: admin keys of several copied systems have changed since the copy, and a closed list on the copied Arbitrum was switched off. 5. The central idea is to count all eligible copied stablecoins as one unit, U, so that price gaps between them drive trading. U ties them together. It does not make them dollars. 6. On the paper's own arithmetic this would be slow: 579 days or 16 years, depending on the size of each step. 7. Maker on PulseChain was shut down in April 2025. No way to create pDAI at will has been shown, and no way to redeem it for a dollar. 8. Our measurements: almost all outside money that came over the bridge left again. The pDAI supply went from 4.69 billion to 120 billion and back to 44. More than half of the net new supply went through one address. 9. Not shown, by the paper's own account: a running peg campaign, intent, the private chain, one controller. A test for it is written down and has not been run. 10. So the paper's closing thesis turns on the word "could". It is a blueprint with some parts in place. It is not proof that pDAI will reach $1, and not proof that it cannot. If you take one thing from this series: keep "is possible", "is in place" and "is happening" apart. They get mixed up easily. And one question stays with me. A stablecoin normally grows with its users: more demand, more coins. Since the shutdown, pDAI no longer grows through new loans. If PulseChain grows, how does an amount of about 44 billion that can no longer grow that way serve as its stablecoin? And what does that mean for a design that runs through the neighbouring coins? Tomorrow, one more. Not the paper. My own take. PROOF OF READ · 12/12 Check it yourself The paper's closing thesis, p. 458: "distributed wallets could use private-L2 funding, accepted local issuance and common-unit arbitrage" to acquire pDAI and neighbouring stables, manage supply, and fund a separately specified two-sided dollar policy with timely replenishment (second half in my words). Three pieces of work that "would change the conclusion", p. 460: the exact source and its restoration after use; the bridge and acquisition reconstruction; repeated dollar-responsive support. Where to find what: source 03 · keys 04 · U 05 · pace 06 · Maker 07 · bridge 08 · supply 09 · recipients 10 · loop and test 11.

Nobody knows who they are. No VC. No funding. No face. They just ship. Cross-chain swaps. Private mode via Railgun. Stables at 1:1 with zero fees. A wallet. A launchpad. A DEX. Liberty Cash for $PLS, $HEX, $pDAI and pulsechain-peacock:native. While everyone else was waiting for news, they kept building. "All we need is a good peg. Then PulseChain is golden." This one's for the builders who never stopped. 🔥🦚

So far: the parts, one by one. And three measurements of our own. Today: the whole thing in motion. What does the paper say happens IF it runs? It describes a loop: → steady buying and money in the pools make pDAI easier to trade → a coin that trades reliably gets used: for payments, trading, borrowing → use brings income → income pays for more support and, in time, for real backing → and round again One arrow in that loop the paper labels with care: "possible adoption". People actually using it. That is the step nobody can force. What is closed today? The paper found four routes shut when it looked: → the credit line at Aave is set to zero → one copied token (sETH2, a staked-ETH token) is broken in its code → Maker's swap counter is shut (post 07) → the issuers only have limited cash And the big open point: who pays the dollar side? Somebody has to put real money behind the bids. The paper names a candidate, USDC that came from Ethereum, and writes in its own table that getting it or funding it "remains open". It also says plainly what it has NOT shown: → no proven campaign to peg pDAI → no proven intent → the private chain: unseen → no proof that one party controls it all Then the test. The paper spells out how you would check whether pDAI is really being held at a price: orders of 1,000 pDAI, within 1 % of the target, over 24 hours, 100 on each side. That test has not been run. Why it matters: this is the honest state of things. A blueprint with a loop that makes sense on paper, routes that are closed today, and a test that would show whether the service exists at that size. The paper calls its open points not established "rather than impossible". Both halves count. Tomorrow: the whole paper in ten sentences. PROOF OF READ · 11/12 Check it yourself Loop: paper p. 12. Five phases, p. 10: activate routes · accumulate gradually · build execution depth · operate the price policy · extend economic use. Four gates, p. 12: zero Portal caps (all 17), broken sETH2 logic, disabled ordinary Maker PSM, finite issuer cash. Payer, p. 17: conversion into the benchmark Ethereum-origin USDC, "or independent funding of it, remains open". For the source side, p. 16: "delivery payer and latency remain unknown". And p. 460: "One passing episode does not establish perpetual support." Test, pp. 459–460: 1,000 pDAI per request, ±1 %, 24 hours, 100 requests per side; "this investigation did not submit orders". Not shown, pp. 458–459.

So far: the amount of pDAI went from 4.69 billion to 120 billion and back to 44. Today, our third measurement: who received the newly created pDAI? Since the copy, 431 addresses have received newly created pDAI. One of them accounts for 55.9 % of the entire net increase. Its numbers: 106.1 billion created to it. 84.0 billion destroyed again by it. What remains: about 22.17 billion. The timing: → 16 April 2025, 05:47 UTC: 95.1 billion pDAI in ONE step. → 06:27 UTC, forty minutes later: the Maker shutdown. → 10:26 UTC the same day: 72.9 billion destroyed again. → 18 April, after the shutdown: 10 billion created, destroyed 11 blocks later. Then another 989 million, destroyed 4 blocks later. One more fact from the chain: the address that received the 95.1 billion is the same address that sent the shutdown transaction forty minutes later. What the paper says about holders: it names no accumulator. It records single purchases. We looked at the other side: who was handed the new pDAI when it was made. Why it matters: if you want to judge whether pDAI can be bought up or held at a price, you need to know how it is spread. More than half of the net new supply went through one address. Where it went from there is a different question, and we have not answered it here. What we do not know: why. An address is not a person, and timing is not a motive. Every transaction is below. Don't trust me. Re-measure it. Tomorrow: what would happen if the machine runs. And the test nobody has run yet. PROOF OF READ · 10/12 Check it yourself 95,138,643,085.81 pDAI minted, 16 April 2025, 05:47:15 UTC: TX 0xed5e890fca0af3913f2cf50a86f304129bf34b8724baf1dbe8560bab675140c6 72,931,193,872.97 burned, 10:26:05 UTC: TX 0x05ef20cd67269f4c73d8a2928a08e7caaabadc19f527dc723e9ddb432859bc73 10,000,000,000 minted, 18 April 2025: TX 0x9e113c3733e24ba2b65dfcadf3a4bc950ce153d40289ebbd33441fad7a3eb997 burned 11 blocks later: TX 0x53c6094b9dd280d170fe995f3849f99fecc843e6d40bfd0b751a7471995b08f6 988,967,726.77 minted: TX 0x2e18ccbe0a4ea43cea800f5830958058f4701ca8b05754a44c333fbc078fa542 burned 4 blocks later: TX 0x86241ed47da88d27f9afe78408868b81ee4c19b419f11a10792a826e6c515fe3 Shutdown transaction, same sender as the recipient of the mints, 06:27:15 UTC: TX 0x6530fc843a760c883bcdf00ec006fc1b9bcaa8049f79d9e9c65b8f096d21dd3a Seven mints to this address between 24 March and 18 April 2025. 431 and 55.9 %: all mint and burn events since the copy, two RPCs. Paper pp. 5, 158.

"The things that we build will continue to work while we're asleep." @RichardHeartWin , wherever you are right now, thank you. For believing in us before we believed in ourselves. For building something no one can switch off. For teaching us that patience is power and that freedom is worth the wait. You gave us the tools. The rest is on us. The chain runs. The community stands. We're not going anywhere. Hold the line. 🫡

So far: almost all outside money that came over the bridge has left again. Today, our second measurement: how much pDAI is there, and how did it get there? At the copy in May 2023: 4.69 billion pDAI. On the day of the Maker shutdown, April 2025: 117 billion. Forty minutes before the shutdown even 120 billion. Today: 44.36 billion. So the amount went up about 25 times. Then it fell by more than half. It is easy to assume pDAI was copied once and that is the amount. In fact at least 89 % of the pDAI that exists today was created AFTER the copy. The paper gives one number for the supply: "about 44.363 billion". It is correct. This is the path behind it. Why it matters: the paper's machine is about buying pDAI in the market. For that you have to know how much there is and where it came from. Most of it is not old copied money. It was made on PulseChain, with the wildest swings in a few weeks in spring 2025. Which leaves one question: who received it? Tomorrow: 431 addresses. And one that stands out. PROOF OF READ · 09/12 Check it yourself totalSupply() on the pDAI contract 0x6B175474E89094C44Da98b954EedeAC495271d0F (archive node needed for old blocks): block 17,233,000 (copy): 4,689,608,549.69 block 23,032,821 (March 2025): 24,666,667,525.23 block 23,225,002: 120,383,292,870.81, the highest value we read block 23,225,241 (shutdown): 117,133,916,713.84 block 27,700,000 (Oct 2026): 44,362,729,123.54 Paper p. 193.

So far: what the paper says about source, keys, U, pace and Maker. Today, our own measurement: the bridge to Ethereum. Why the bridge? Because it is the main door for outside money. Post 05 ended there: the copied stablecoins can be pulled together, but lifting them takes money from outside. Real DAI, real USDC from Ethereum come in through this bridge. And leave through it. The paper has an idea about it: money goes out, is put to work, comes back. Take out, redeploy, refill. It calls that "a serious hypothesis". And it says the bookkeeping that could test it has not been done yet. So we did a first cut. Every bridge movement since the copy, five assets. Real DAI from Ethereum: 525.1 million in. 513.7 million out. The same picture for USDC, USDT, ETH and Bitcoin: between 97 and 98.5 % of what came in has left again. My reading: a lot of money has passed through. Very little has stayed. To be fair to the paper: its idea is out-and-back, not a growing pile. So these numbers do not contradict it. They do not confirm it either. They show the size of the flow. What it does NOT say: who moved the money, or why. The same amounts would fit traders passing through just as well. The paper has the matching caution: "An unrelated depositor can supply the replacement capital." Tomorrow: the supply of pDAI. 4.69 billion at the copy. Wait until you see what came next. PROOF OF READ · 08/12 Check it yourself All bridge events, PulseChain side, blocks 17,233,000 to 27,712,458 (two RPCs): DAI: 525,106,387 in · 513,679,016 out · net +11,427,371 USDC: 521,713,630 in · 507,589,151 out · net +14,124,479 USDT: 206,597,904 in · 202,382,818 out · net +4,215,086 WETH: 269,458 in · 265,447 out · net +4,011 WBTC: 982.6 in · 967.2 out · net +15.4 In DAI the net has been shrinking since block 22,000,000. Paper pp. 158–160: "Compare exact token quantities and independently valued flows, not just a dashboard total."

So far: source, keys, the unit U, and a pace measured in years. Today: Maker. The system that creates DAI, and on PulseChain pDAI. On Ethereum, Maker works like a pawn shop: you deposit collateral, it hands you DAI. PulseChain got a full copy of it. On 16 April 2025 that copy was shut down. An emergency stop that is built into Maker was triggered. Since then the pawn shop is closed: no new loans, no swapping dollar coins for pDAI at the counter. Two things people get wrong about what is left. First: 128 billion pDAI sit in Maker. No. Think of a bank: the figure in its ledger is one thing, the cash in its vault another. The 128 billion is a ledger figure. The vault in question holds 0.1443398 pDAI in actual tokens. The paper: "These are different balances." Second: no pDAI can ever be created again. Also no. One door still works. Whoever already holds credit in Maker's books, for example from its savings account, can turn it into pDAI tokens. That happened on 3 Oct 2026: about 460 new pDAI. They were sold straight away. And the official way out after a shutdown, handing in pDAI for a share of the collateral? The paper's arithmetic: one million pDAI would get you about 879 pUSDC. Less than a tenth of a percent. And even that has not been shown to pay out. Can someone create pDAI at will? The code has a function without a shutdown check, for authorized callers only. The paper's verdict: "No usable group-controlled arbitrary issuance path is demonstrated." Why it matters: no way to create pDAI at will has been shown, and no way to redeem it for a dollar. Whatever happens with pDAI happens in the market. From here on it is no longer just the paper. The next three posts are our own measurements. Tomorrow: the bridge. 525 million in. Guess how much left again. PROOF OF READ · 07/12 Check it yourself Shutdown, 16 April 2025, 06:27:15 UTC: TX 0x6530fc843a760c883bcdf00ec006fc1b9bcaa8049f79d9e9c65b8f096d21dd3a Vat.live() = 0 on 0x35D1b3F3D7966A1DFe207aa4514C12a259A0492B DaiJoin.live() = 1 on 0x9759A6Ac90977b93B58547b4A71c78317f391A28; its pDAI balance: 0.1443398 The 3 Oct 2026 trade: 442.19 sDAI → 460.843244 pDAI, sold; net 110.69 PLS TX 0x4c86b58887503eda7cd4c1ecb6e601e18f435974b00cd78076f9a8bf9dd9c5ec Paper p. 9 on that trade: "Profit and direct price support are distinct jobs". It ended by selling pDAI. Settlement: about 879.28 pUSDC per million pDAI, 0.088 %; "Processing and payout have not been demonstrated." (p. 22) The function without shutdown check creates credit in the internal books, not tokens (pp. 22, 305).

So far: a source, keys, and a unit that ties the stablecoins together. Today: how fast could it run? The paper does the arithmetic. It assumes one purchase every ten seconds, as long as pDAI is below the target and money is available. That is 8,640 purchases a day. → At 10,000 units each: about 579 days to place 50 billion, the example amount the paper picks. → At 1,000 units each: about 16 years. Read that twice. On the paper's own numbers this is no single big move. It is small steps over years. Two things the paper adds itself. Those 50 billion are counted in tokens, "not verified dollars". And it calls the pace "the acquisition assumption". Nobody has announced it. The paper worked it out. The parts have waiting times of their own. These are set in the contracts and anyone can read them: → the copied Arbitrum: about 5.3 days before a report counts → Across: two hours → Aave: one day And one point that is easy to miss: bought pDAI is not gone. It can come back to market, through lending, through pools, through withdrawals. The paper: "The circulating supply need not all be purchased to raise a market price." Why it matters: the question is not how much gets bought. It is how much is for sale at each price, and who can keep paying. If this runs at all, it runs slowly. Tomorrow: Maker, the system that created DAI. And the 128 billion that are not there. PROOF OF READ · 06/12 Check it yourself Arithmetic: paper p. 10. 50,000,000,000 ÷ (8,640 × 10,000) = 578.7 days. confirmPeriodBlocks() = 45,818 on 0x5eF0D09d1E6204141B4d37530808eD19f60FBa35 liveness() = 7,200 s on 0xc186fa914353c44b2e33ebe05f21846f1048beda getDelay() = 86,400 s on 0xEE56e2B3D491590B5b31738cC34d5232F378a8D5 Paper pp. 212, 418: supply minus what one party holds is "not a valid general measure of sellable supply."

So far: a possible money source, and keys that changed hands. Today: the idea at the centre of the paper. One letter: U. PulseChain has many copied stablecoins: pDAI, pUSDC, pUSDT and a long row of others. None of them can be redeemed for a dollar. But they can be measured against EACH OTHER. The paper's rule: count every eligible one as one unit. It calls the unit U. Why do that? Because then every price gap becomes a signal. If one coin is cheaper than its neighbour, buy the cheap one, convert it, sell the dear one. Do that often enough and the coins would move toward each other. How far depends on fees, on how much sits in the pools, and on delays. The tools for it are already there, copied along with everything else: → 618 exchange pools from Curve. → One issuer, FEI, that takes pDAI at one-for-one and hands out its own coin. → A swap counter at Synthetix: 30,000 pDAI in, 29,925 of its dollar coin out. And one example: a single transaction on 30 Sep 2026 went through such a round trip and came out with about 200,000 PLS more than it started with. PLS is PulseChain's own coin. It shows that a round trip like this can end with more than it began with. Nothing more. Now the catch. Most summaries drop it: U is not a dollar. It tells you how the neighbours stand to each other. Ten coins can agree perfectly with each other and all be worth a fraction of a cent. The paper: "U becomes a dollar promise only with a funded dollar-reference exit." In plain words: only when someone with real dollars stands behind it. Why it matters: U can pull the copied stablecoins together. It cannot lift them. For that, something with real dollar value has to pay. In the paper's list that is parts 6, 7 and 9. Tomorrow: how fast could this run? The paper did the arithmetic. One answer is 579 days. The other is 16 years. PROOF OF READ · 05/12 Check it yourself The rule, p. 5: "one normalized eligible pStable = one accounting unit, U." Curve census, p. 18: 618 pools, 176 with 3CRV, 64 with FRAXBP. Being in the catalogue "does not establish usable inventory". FEI: about 39.09 million pDAI in the sampled module (p. 21). Synthetix wrapper: cap 20 million, about 14.65 million free (p. 26). Maker's swap counter (PSM), October 2023, before the shutdown: 17,100,665.759301 pUSDC in, the same number of pDAI out (p. 144). Supply tools (part 5): the paper singles out FRAX's AMOs and DOLA's Feds, designs that deploy authorized supply into venues and can remove it again. The round trip, block 27,677,491: in 26,704.81 PLS → out 228,173.11 PLS → net 200,053.20 PLS after gas TX 0xf0710068552969db6c76e2b3fa68306c3989b471e6cd01c9daed1e7295093d3d Paper on it (p. 143): it "does not establish dollar profit or group ownership of the trader." Also p. 9: "Shared base reserves count once". Ten routes into the same pool are not ten sources of money.

So far: the money would come from a private second chain. The paper could not look inside it. Today: who decides what the copied systems accept? Most of these systems have admin keys. Whoever holds one can change the rules: what counts as a valid deposit, which code runs, who gets paid. On Ethereum those keys sit with the original teams and their voters. On the copy, the same key slots exist. The question is who fills them now. The paper went looking for changes since the copy. Two examples show what that means in practice. Example 1: a shared wallet. The copied main wallet of GnosisDAO used to need 3 of its 5 owners to sign. Since June 2026 it needs 1 of 6. Any one of its six owners can now move whatever that wallet holds or controls. Example 2: a waiting period. On the copied Arbitrum, changes that go through its central timelock had to wait at least three days before taking effect. Time for others to notice and react. In February 2025 that wait was cut to one second. The paper confirms more of the same kind: at Aave, the lending market, in July 2023. At GnosisDAO's treasury wallet. At Across, a bridge system, in June 2026. All listed below. Just as important is what did NOT change: the Synthetix wallet still needs 5 of 13 signatures. The Optimism one 5 of 7. The Arbitrum security council 9 of 12. Why it matters, in my reading: several of the routes the paper describes need exactly such permissions. Where a key has moved, a route could be opened. But a key in a lock is not a door that has been opened. And the paper's limit: this "does not establish common control of every address". The changes are on chain. Who is behind them is not. Tomorrow: the idea that ties all the stablecoins together. It fits in one letter. PROOF OF READ · 04/12 Check it yourself Aave V2 addresses provider, proposal 224, 1 July 2023: TX 0xfd8a37ca9217544d3e87259c8e2a5532e09583fb3b4b460409ccc8b455fbd500 Copied Arbitrum L1 timelock, 259,200 s → 1 s, 24 Feb 2025: TX 0xd358f79692378fd56a7345ac14a2a0627437ea32a7a43fcf8ee64ee51fcee6f0 GnosisDAO Safe, 3-of-5 → 1-of-6, 10 June 2026: TX 0xcbd5acee254fbd7ea64e93759f2c314ee1c29fcaf3702fde8011def0c61f867d Treasury Safe, 3-of-10 → 1-of-11, 18 June 2026: TX 0x9c538221de2cf63984487e8a7f4d5bd03a0902f0811054b0ae6f4324dbc42b37 Across HubPool, new owner, 19 June 2026, after an assertion nobody disputed in five days: TX 0x67751f88a0d619133452c08ce255960cb53a8afa9923ac62c33b874e433e04fd Copied Arbitrum UpgradeExecutor, proxy admin moved, 19 July 2026: TX 0x1fb166756acc98f64a8c94247600342e984483194bcdc5b08c3d27836c0a4eb5 Paper: pp. 19, 33–34, 346, 348, section "Confirmed governance changes and attribution limits". For the two Safe changes it adds that the evidence does not establish malicious intent or stolen keys. The link to "what gets accepted" is my reading.

From one straight man to another, I love this guy.

Because a lot of people asked for it....

Happy Birthday RH - it stands for Richard Heart @RichardHeartWin

So far: the paper describes a machine meant to hold pDAI at a target price. Nine parts. Today, part 1: where would the money for that come from? The paper's answer: a second, private chain that reports to PulseChain. Think of a branch office reporting to headquarters. When the branch says "pay this out", the contracts on PulseChain pay. According to the paper, the code it reviewed can accept such a report without doing the calculation again, unless someone objects in time. So everything depends on who may send those reports. On PulseChain sits a copy of the contracts of Arbitrum, a large chain of exactly this kind. There, reporting used to be limited to a closed list. Since 21 May 2023 the list is switched off. Two addresses had put up the deposit for this job in the copied state. Today 18 have. What has come out so far? The paper followed 106 payouts. 104 only moved tokens that already existed. Two created new tokens: → ARB: the supply went from 6.9 million to a number with 30 digits. → GRT: about 62.9 million new tokens. Neither is a stablecoin. And the paper on the 30-digit number: "The size alone says nothing about redeemability or value." What this shows: the list no longer guards the door, and reports are being sent. What it does not show: that any report was false, or that new stablecoins or real dollars were created this way. Why it matters: this is one of the parts that would feed the rest. And the private chain itself is the piece the paper did not inspect. It says so. Tomorrow: a delivery is worth nothing if the other side does not accept it. Who decides that now? PROOF OF READ · 03/12 Check it yourself List switched off, 21 May 2023, 17:38:35 UTC, via removeWhitelistAfterFork(): TX 0x90ca42a34fbd940efb30bdff0a7632640e659c9f9afe44f3202c51a1b3c2272b (block 17,322,438; the call leaves no event: read validatorWhitelistDisabled() one block before and after) Contract: 0x5eF0D09d1E6204141B4d37530808eD19f60FBa35 stakerCount(): 2 in the copied state, 18 today. latestConfirmed(): 5,069 then, 5,355 today (our own read). ARB, 21 Sep 2024: 6,903,225.68 → 972,406,600,390,402,296,078,733,787,224.66 TX 0xeebae5bce4da69f232af22b0d4ccb53855539ed268ca023c1f5b6a52ed11968a GRT, 1 Sep 2026: 62,875,936.68 minted TX 0xf7ed5701901cef056395582eab068f1a2e75cdfcf717301c16e89a05ff885ae9 Second possible source, Aave's Portal: all 17 caps at zero, no such mint found in the searched range. Paper: pp. 8, 136, 149, 348. Its limits: ARB and GRT are "the only demonstrated destination issuance cases within this finite census"; several later admin recipients are also stakers, which "establishes address overlap, not 18 independent operators or exclusive validator control."

Before the machine: the basics. Without them nothing in the next ten posts makes sense. What is pDAI? A stablecoin is a token that is meant to be worth one dollar. DAI is one of the big ones on Ethereum. In May 2023 PulseChain started as a copy of Ethereum. Not just the code. Every balance and every contract as they stood at that moment. So every token on Ethereum got a twin on PulseChain. The twin of the stablecoin DAI is called pDAI. Why is pDAI not at $1? DAI on Ethereum holds its dollar because real assets stand behind it, for example dollars held with a company that pays them out. On PulseChain those assets were copied too. But a copied claim on a dollar is not honoured by anyone outside PulseChain. The twin kept the name. It did not keep the backing. It trades far below a dollar. What does the paper claim? Not that pDAI goes to $1. It describes how the copied systems on PulseChain COULD be used to bring pDAI to a target price and hold it there. The target it works with is $1, as a research hypothesis, not a forecast. Its starting point is one assumption, and it labels it as one: "Its working assumption is coordinated intent to benefit pDAI and PulseChain." How would that work? Like a market maker with a refill line: → buy pDAI while it is below the target → offer pDAI at the target → refill what that consumed The paper names nine parts for it. In plain words: 1. A private second chain: where money or instructions would come from. 2. The copied lending market (Aave): credit before the backing has arrived. 3. Stablecoin issuers: turn deposits into coins that already exist in the pools. 4. Exchange pools (Curve, Balancer): swap one coin for another. 5. Supply controls and rebasing: adjust the eligible supply, each under its own rules. 6. Positions in native assets: proceeds or income. 7. The bridge to Ethereum: the door for outside money. 8. Many separate wallets: do the buying and converting. 9. A dollar price with money behind it: someone who really pays a dollar's worth when you sell, and really delivers when you buy. It also says: "A useful subset can operate the strategy." Not all nine have to run. The paper is careful about its own status. It is a proposal, not a system shown to be running as a whole. What this series does: one part per post. What the paper says, what can be seen on chain, what is missing. Posts 08 to 10 are our own measurements. From tomorrow with transactions you can check yourself. Tomorrow: part 1. Where would the money come from? PROOF OF READ · 02/12 Check it yourself Purpose and assumption: paper p. 5. Nine parts and five jobs: p. 6. Flow in five steps: p. 7. The purpose in the paper's words: "A funded two-sided pDAI dollar policy is the service this network aims to deliver." Copy point: Ethereum state as of 10 May 2023, 22:36:11 UTC.