Sommi has been a vocal advocate for pDAI, the PulseChain version of DAI, arguing it has significant upside potential despite controversy and skepticism.
His position, as seen in posts on X, hinges on the idea that pDAI could eventually peg to $1, offering a 330x reward against a maximum downside of -100%.
Sommi points to patterns where pDAI pumps after major FUD events—like Richard Heart hiding replies or selling 5,555 pDAI—suggesting resilience and market confidence.
He also hints at a deeper plan involving Richard Heart, possibly a fractional reserve strategy, which could stabilize pDAI’s value.
This stance deserves a robust defense, especially given Heart’s recent ambiguous framing of pDAI issues as "rumored" rather than factual.
First, Sommi’s optimism is grounded in observable market behavior.
Posts on X highlight how pDAI has defied negative sentiment, rising after Heart’s actions that might typically signal a dump.
This resilience could indicate underlying support—perhaps from large holders or a yet-unrevealed mechanism—aligning with Sommi’s belief in a strategic pegging plan.
Critics might argue this is speculative, but Sommi’s focus on historical price action provides a practical basis for his position, not just blind faith.
Second, Richard Heart’s own language bolsters Sommi’s case indirectly.
In a March 20, 2025, post, Heart notes pDAI’s supply inflation to 24.5 billion and questions who’s minting and dumping it, calling it "rumored."
This choice of word is telling—Heart doesn’t assert these as facts but leaves them open-ended, avoiding a definitive condemnation of pDAI.
If Richard Heart, the founder of PulseChain, believed pDAI was irredeemably broken, he could have stated so outright.
Instead, his ambiguity suggests either uncertainty or a deliberate choice to not discredit it fully—potentially leaving room for Sommi’s theory of an orchestrated stabilization effort.
Moreover, Sommi’s mention of a "fractional reserve gameplan" isn’t as far-fetched as detractors claim.
PulseChain, as an Ethereum fork, inherited DAI’s framework, but pDAI lacks a functioning Maker Protocol to enforce its peg.
Yet, posts on X from users like @NineIronCapital
note RH’s wallet has burned significant pDAI supply, reducing it below pre-exploit levels.
This could signal an intent to control inflation, supporting Sommi’s view of a behind-the-scenes strategy.
Richard’s "rumored" phrasing might even be a hedge, masking active involvement until a peg is viable.
Finally, Sommi’s risk-reward framing—lose 100%, gain 330x—appeals to crypto’s speculative ethos.
While critics, including @0xpulsewhale, accuse him of misleading followers during an exploit, Sommi’s transparency about risks counters this.
He’s not denying controversy but betting on potential, a stance Richard’s non-committal "rumored" remark doesn’t outright refute.
Sommi’s position on pDAI is defensible through market trends,
Heart’s ambiguous language, and plausible strategic hints.
Far from reckless, it’s a calculated take on a volatile asset with room to grow.