DannyManDeBo

Imagine when pDAI “influencers” are finally getting their comeuppance - and end up in court: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, This case is about a token that was never a stablecoin, a set of claims that were never true, and a group of people who spent years telling others lies - to enrich themselves at the expense of very naive would-be investors. When PulseChain launched, it duplicated the state of Ethereum. Every address that held DAI received a corresponding balance of a new token on the new chain. That token has the same contract address format as DAI. It has none of the systems that keep DAI near one dollar. There is no overcollateralized vault system actively managing it. There is no redemption window where one pDAI can be turned in for one dollar or one real DAI. There is no functioning peg-stability module backed by external reserves. Its price is whatever buyers and sellers on PulseChain agree to pay - and for years, that had been a fraction of a penny! What the evidence will show is that a large number of accounts—dozens of them, posting regularly over multiple years—described something else. They called pDAI a stablecoin. They said it was “inevitable” that it would reach and hold one dollar. They pointed to forked contracts, vault deposits, oracle readings, and specific wallet transactions and told their followers these were the mechanisms that would force the peg. They spoke of multi-billion-dollar collateral capacity and defense systems that would protect the price. They framed the outcome as programmed, as already in motion, as something a person could rely on. These were not occasional comments. The same accounts returned to the claim again and again, often with new on-chain activity presented as fresh confirmation that the peg was close. When the price remained far below one dollar, the explanations adjusted but the certainty did not. New vaults, new interpretations, new timelines appeared. The core message stayed the same: this token will be worth a dollar, and the system will make it so. The evidence will also show what those statements produced. People bought and held on the basis of them. Later buyers provided the liquidity that allowed earlier or larger holders to sell. The real-dollar liquidity available in the ecosystem remained a small fraction of the stated valuations. The mechanisms that were described never operated as a working peg. Independent descriptions of the token—including some that appeared inside the same community—stated plainly that pDAI floats freely and has no Maker-style collateral system. A disclaimer that says “not financial advice,” or a phrase that says the outcome “requires belief,” does not change the content of what was said or the context in which it was said. When a person repeatedly tells an audience that a specific token has a path to a dollar value through described mechanisms, and those mechanisms do not exist in working form, the label attached to the statement does not erase the statement. You will see the posts. You will see the dates. You will see the price over the same period. You will see that the claims continued after the absence of any functioning peg system was observable to anyone who looked at the token’s actual design. The question for you is whether that pattern reflects an honest description of how this token works, or whether it reflects something else. The evidence will let you decide. #pDAI @DOJFraudDiv @INTERPOL_USA @INTERPOL_HQ

#NASDAQ is down for weeks - I’m buying. #alts are down much worse. I ain’t touching them.