Provider at a glance
- Category
- Liquid Lockers
- Entity
- Not verified
- Official website
- llama.airforce
Independent rankingchecked How it works
Details
Scored 77 out of 100 under methodology 2026.10.18, from the evidence read in September 2026.
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)
CVX liquid wrapper
Liquid Lockers
#2 Overall
Ranked #2 of 5 liquid lockers in the published ranking
77
ChainChoice Score
The ChainChoice Score, shown against 100: published scores run from 41 to 99.- High evidence confidence
Is Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) right for you?
Right for you if these matter most
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption6/10, the category best
Look elsewhere if these come first
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor5/10 here; Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) scores 7
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all4/10 here; Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) scores 7
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself6/10 here; Convex Finance (cvxCRV) scores 8
Not yet tested for your country. Markets it lists: Global.
to test where you can use it.
The rank above is the published one, the same for every reader. Find my best liquid locker shows where it lands for you.
What will Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) cost you?
Not priced on this basis
- Your stake
- $32k
- Expected gross yield
- 5%
How safe is Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)?
- Evidence: verified4 of 4 criteria rest on quoted, sourced receipts. Read September 2026.
- LicenceMiCA (EU): no register record on file here.
Alternatives to Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)
Compare all 4- 1Convex Finance (cvxCRV)2 points above · stronger on base protocol unwind (6 against 4)79
- 3Yearn yCRV1 point below · stronger on contract control incidents (8 against 6)76
- 4Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker)2 points below · stronger on base protocol unwind (7 against 4)75
For your setup
Find out if Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) fits you
The rank above is the published one — the same for every visitor. Answer the category's questions and this section shows where Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) lands for you, which criteria your answers weight up, and which stated needs the record does or does not meet. The published rank stays beside it.
- A few questions
- No account required
- Ranking-blind: no commercial input
- Personalised in under 60 seconds
Find my best liquid lockerNothing is inferred from clicks, popularity or commercial value.
Why this rank
Why Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) ranks #2
Each strength is read from evidence on a 0–10 ladder and weighted as the published methodology states. The 32 objective points these produce (17.1 here) sit inside the score; availability, friction, trust record and measured data add the rest. Best in this ranking on 1 of 4.
4 published criteria · Σ weight 100
CriterionWeightStrength · 0–10ScoreContrib.MedianBestRankEvidence
356+6.723.06#1/5Loading evidence…
255+4.006.07#4/5Loading evidence…
204+2.565.07#4/5Loading evidence…
206+3.846.08#3/5Loading evidence…
Hairline = best in this ranking · tick = its median · a missing bar is "not scored", never zero
Margin−2behind Convex Finance (cvxCRV), #1
RobustnessOne point from changingacross a one-point change to each of its 4 criterion scores, the re-run scores 75–79 and ranks #2–#3
Evidence4 of 4 scored4 quoted, 4 with a source link
What would move the rank
Each line is the ranking run again with one of Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)’s criterion scores changed and every other value held: the smallest whole-point change on that criterion that moves its rank, and where the re-run puts it. Up to 4 climbs and 3 falls are listed, smallest change first. Nothing here is a forecast.
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Convex Finance (cvxCRV)+279#2 → #1
Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor 5 → 7 on its ladder · passes Convex Finance (cvxCRV)+279#2 → #1
What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all 4 → 6 on its ladder · passes Convex Finance (cvxCRV)+279#2 → #1
Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself 6 → 8 on its ladder · passes Convex Finance (cvxCRV)+279#2 → #1
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption 6 → 5 on its ladder · Yearn yCRV passes it−175#2 → #3
Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor 5 → 4 on its ladder · Yearn yCRV passes it−175#2 → #3
What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all 4 → 2 on its ladder · Yearn yCRV passes it−274#2 → #4
Smallest climb: the exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption 6 → 8 passes Convex Finance (cvxCRV), #1.
Strengths
1 from the score dataWhere it leads
Best for readers who weight
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption — 6/10, the category best
Tradeoffs
3 from the score dataWhere it trails
Not for readers who put first
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor — 5/10 against a category best of 7/10
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all — 4/10 against a category best of 7/10
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself — 6/10 against a category best of 8/10
Record watch-outs
- Read this as an orphaned instrument that still works, and hold three things at once. First, the redemption is genuine, verified end to end: permissionless, at 1.000440x NAV, exercised five times by ordinary EOAs in the week before the reads, with 210,665 CVX of capacity inside 30 days. That is why it scores 6 rather than what its market price alone would earn — a $100,000 exit through the lpxCvx/CVX pool measured 41.87% below NAV on 2026-09-28 (70.30% on 2026-08-12), and although the pool's CVX side, about $61,210, now clears the $50,000 floor, its lpxCvx side, about $27,500, is far below the $250,000 on both sides that the 5-6 band asks for. Second, it scores 6, not 7, because the 7-8 band asks for a queue cap or a <=3% instant exit and Pirex offers neither: there is no instant exit at any price, on 2026-09-28 the soonest unlock (2026-10-01) priced at 4.91%, and the advertised 1% floor is unreachable because Convex locks run 16 weeks against a 17-week fee divisor — Omniscia raised exactly this as PCV-03M "Mismatch of Maximum Redemption Time" but then nullified the exhibit on the team's rebuttal, so treat the auditor as silent on it and the support as the live lock ladder, which on 2026-09-28 priced the longest lock (unlocking 2027-01-21) at 1.15%. Third, and most material: the sponsor is dissolving. The governance document is "Plume Acquisition Of Dinero" (2025-10-02), proposing dissolution of the Dinero DAO, with an acquired product list — ipxETH, pxSOL, pxBTC, branded LST — that never mentions pxCVX. The forum has been silent since, the contracts repo has not been pushed since Feb 2024, and the parent's docs no longer contain a pxCVX page. Nobody is coming to unwind this on your behalf; the reason it still functions is that lock() is permissionless and the code is immutable. Finally, treat the vote-incentive and protocol-fee pass-throughs as two different numbers, not one: 96% and 0%.
Competitive position
Where Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) leads and where it trails
Rank on every objective dimension among the rows scored on it. A criterion in the top third of its pool is listed as a lead, the bottom third as a trail; the middle is neither. Popularity, size and commercial terms are not dimensions.
Availability#1 / 514.0 of 20 · constant here
Published criteria#2 / 512.8 of 30 · best 13.7
Friction#1 / 52.7 of 10 · constant here
Trust record#1 / 53.2 of 8 · constant here
Measured data#1 / 58.3 of 18 · constant here
Where Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) leads
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption#1 / 5
Where it trails
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor#4 / 5
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all#4 / 5
Closest alternatives
The 3 nearest rows by score
Nearest by published score in either direction. Each card states the criteria on which the two rows differ and the cost difference under the same scenario inputs; the compare arithmetic below shows why the higher one ranks higher.
Yearn yCRV#3 of 5 · score 76 · 1.0 point behind
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) leads on
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption6 vs 3
Yearn yCRV leads on
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor6 vs 5
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all5 vs 4
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself8 vs 6
Largest single reason Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) is ahead: published criteria (+1.0 display points).Scenario cost: Yearn yCRV has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Convex Finance (cvxCRV)#1 of 5 · score 79 · 2.0 points ahead
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) leads on
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption6 vs 4
Convex Finance (cvxCRV) leads on
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor6 vs 5
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all6 vs 4
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself8 vs 6
Largest single reason Convex Finance (cvxCRV) is ahead: published criteria (+2.3 display points).Scenario cost: Convex Finance (cvxCRV) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker)#4 of 5 · score 75 · 2.0 points behind
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) leads on
- The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption6 vs 3
- Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself6 vs 4
Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) leads on
- Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor7 vs 5
- What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all7 vs 4
Largest single reason Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) is ahead: published criteria (+2.1 display points).Scenario cost: Stake DAO (sdCRV Liquid Locker) has no verified pricing for this scenario.
Against the leader
79 vs 77 · gap 2.0Why Convex Finance (cvxCRV) ranks above Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)
The compare workspace's arithmetic applied to these two rows. Each dimension's share of the gap is its weight × the difference, on the displayed scale — it reproduces the displayed gap of 2.0 to within rounding.
DimensionThisConvex Finance (cvxCRV)Gap share
Availability · 23% weight · constant here14.014.0same
Published criteria · 35% weight12.813.7−2.3, worse
Friction · 12% weight · constant here2.72.7same
Trust record · 9% weight · constant here3.23.2same
Measured data · 21% weight · constant here8.38.3same
Published criterionThisConvex Finance (cvxCRV)Points
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption · w3564+2.24, better
Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor · w2556−0.80, worse
What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all · w2046−1.28, worse
Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself · w2068−1.28, worse
Net7779−2.0
Your scenario
Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) is not priced for this scenario
The operator's cut of the rewards your stake earns — not a fee on the stake itself. Gross yield is your assumption, not ours. Change an input and every figure recomputes from the published rate; the published rank does not move.
commission/yr · default scenario — set your own
Your stake · your input$32k
Expected gross yield · your input5%
Rate read from the provider’s published pricing ↗ on 28 September 2026.
commission/yrCost is stated as commission/yr in USD; it is never a yield, never annualised, and it does not enter the score.
Not priced on this basis
Under the default inputs · USDCategory medianNot priced0 of 5 rows priced
Cheapest pricedNone pricedDifference not stated · availability not applied — set your country to filter
5 of 5 rows in this ranking have no verified rate for this scenario and are absent from the median, not counted as free.
Evidence
Evidence read 28 September 2026
One row per published criterion: the page each strength was read from, its source type by domain, the reading date and whether the file and the published table agree. Open a row for the quote and the receipt.
4 of 4 cells scored
Score evidenceVerified4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from receipts
4 of 4 criteria reconstruct from a quoted, sourced receipt equal to the published strength.Public receiptsReading…4 quoted with a source URL
The receipt file has not been read yet.Evidence confidenceHighcoverage and corroboration, never freshness
4/4 criteria scored, with 4 dated sources quoted.RobustnessOne point from changingrank #2 to #3 across one-point re-runs
Whether the position holds when one criterion score is changed by one point and the ranking is run again. It is always a re-run of the ranking, never an estimate.The newest evidence read on the platform is 3 November 2026; this category's reading is older. The scores stand as read on 28 September 2026.
Reading the evidence ledger…
CriterionSourceTypeReadFreshnessStatusReceipt
The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemptionstrength 6 · weight 35Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositorstrength 5 · weight 25Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at allstrength 4 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itselfstrength 6 · weight 20Report an error—28 September 2026*
Unknown
No reading date is recorded for this cell or its category.No receipt
A strength is published but no quote or source page is on file for it.How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
- Contract failure: the code holding the funds is exploited.Scored by What happens if the base protocol changes or dies, and whether the wrapper can unwind at all · 20% (Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) 4/10)Scored by Contract control and dated incident record of the wrapper itself · 20% (Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) 6/10)
- Control failure (Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) 5/10): a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.Scored by Who controls the votes and the bribes, and what reaches the depositor · 25%
- Exit failure (Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) 6/10): you cannot get out at par, on time, or with what is yours.Scored by The exit that does not exist: measured discount and any contractual redemption · 35%
Not assessed by this ranking: Regulatory failure, Execution failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Facts
facts, not scoresWhat the record publishes
- Pricing
- Pirex publishes no first-party fee page for pxCVX; the terms live in the protocol's own source and deployed contract. Re-fetched 28 September 2026 from https://
raw .githubusercontent .com /dinero-protocol /pirex-convex /master /contracts /PirexCvx .sol (HTTP 200, sha256 e8aff88081c14b3f5a0e51cdc7baf5317016dfc64a95ac52609661bcb42ec49e, byte-identical to August): "uint32 public constant FEE_DENOMINATOR = 1_000_000;", "uint32 public constant FEE_MAX = 100_000;", "uint32 public constant MAX_REDEMPTION_TIME = 17 weeks;", the redemption fee "uint256 feePercent = feeMax - (((feeMax - feeMin) * waitTime) / MAX_REDEMPTION_TIME);" (source line break collapsed) with "feeAmount = (assets * feePercent) / FEE_DENOMINATOR;", and the vote-incentive fee "rewardFee = (received * feePercent) / FEE_DENOMINATOR;". Deployed values (eth_call fees(uint8) on PirexCvx 0x35A398425d9f1029021A92bc3d2557D42C8588D7, Ethereum block 26,074,948, 2026-09-28T09:06:35Z): Reward = 40000 (4.0%), RedemptionMax = 50000 (5.0%), RedemptionMin = 10000 (1.0%), Developers = 5000 (0.5%) — unchanged from 12 August 2026; paused() = false. Worked example, labelled: against the lock ladder read at that block, the shortest redemption (unlock 1 October 2026, 226,405 s away) costs 50000 - 40000 x 226,405 / 10,281,600 = 49,119 parts per million = 4.91%, and the longest (unlock 21 January 2027, 9,903,205 s away) 11,472 = 1.15%; the 1.0% floor is unreachable because Convex locks run 16 weeks against the 17-week constant. The operator's only prose, docs.llama.airforce/ucvx.md (re-fetched 28 September 2026), gives no redemption percentage: "The longer you're willing to wait for your redemption, the lower the fees you'll pay."Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026 - Prices published in
- USDPirex (pxCVX, Redacted) — official pricing page ↗ · 28 September 2026
- Licences held
- Not published
- Compliance level
- partial
- Regulatory note
- Not published
- Supported chains
- Ethereum
- Markets served
- global
- Primary markets
- Not published
- Restricted markets
- Not published
- Operating limits
- Not published
- Availability note
- Not published
No confirmed legal entity is on file for this record. Nothing is inferred from the brand name.
If something goes wrong with Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted): where to complain, and where to report a scam
Loading the routes for your country.
How this page is reviewed
Reviewed means this product in this category was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Accountable for this review: Mathias Siemonsmeier, Founder.
How we review · Review calendar · Corrections log · How we make money
History
What the record carries
Changes to published ranks are recorded in a ledger; every step and its cause is listed on the rank-history page. The entries below begin with the current verified snapshot, then the methodology versions whose changes applied to this category, newest first.
9 methodology entries
- 28 September 2026Current verified snapshot · methodology 2026.10.18Score 77, #2 of 5. 4 of 4 criteria scored. History starts here; earlier values are not interpolated.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.8When nothing serves your country, the list shown for reference is the published ranking · platform-wide- fixed The reference list shown when nothing serves your country is the published order with the published scores, and a build check now fails any such list out of that order or with a score the ranking does not publish.
- fixed The explorer prints an overall rank only for a row the published ranking holds; a country entrant such as Coinbase Commerce for US merchants shows no overall rank.
- changed Published orders do not move. Country results change only where nothing serves the country: in India bill pay keeps Bitcoin Well first and now shows Strike second, as published; 35 such runs across all categories and countries now match the published list exactly.
- 10 October 2026
2026.10.6A criterion you require re-scores the rows that meet it · platform-wide- changed The explorer sends each criterion you require, at any band, as fit_required with your other answers; region, licence, chain and fact filters stay filters. On /best, a required criterion joins For you as a marked preference does, which needs your country; Overall stays the published ranking, filtered.
- added Every published criterion has a golden case as the explorer sends it (require:<criterion>), so the order a requirement gives is replayed and gated as the published order is, and a change to it needs an entry here.
- 16 September 2026
2026.09.15Dimension scores carry tenths, and eleven more categories are re-read from primary sources · platform-wide- changed Dimension scores resolve to tenths of a point (O-04b), and weightedTotal is rounded to six decimal places before the order is read. 518 published scores move across 107 categories that were not re-read; none of them moves by more than 4 points, and most move by 1.
- fixed 66 published scores change in the eleven re-read categories, against a verbatim source each. The largest moves are Reflexer RAI (−16), Beefy and Unrekt (−11), Aztec (−10) and Golem (+9) — all of them rows whose sources had moved since their last read.
- changed Published order moves in 38 of 119 categories and three #1s change: smart_contract_audits (Zellic → Certora) and travel_rule_compliance (Sumsub Travel Rule → CodeVASP) on the finer resolution, kyc_compliance (Veriff → Sumsub) on the re-read.
- added availabilitySource (O-04g): for a reader who states a country, a row whose availability in that country rests on a region tag its record gives no source for sorts below every sourced row. It is inert in every order published here, which states no country.
Methodology 2026.10.18, the same published run every visitor sees · receipt liquid_lockers:pirex_pxcvx:2026.10.18:fb4d2ae4efaf
Are you Pirex (pxCVX, Redacted)? Reply to this verdict, or send evidence, ask for a correction or claim the listing. Every message gets a public ticket number; none of it changes a rank unless a public page or a signed statement supports it.