no? as you are already saving RM590 from not putting in 5k in the first place.. that 590 is the one generating the extra 1.50 or 1.80

6.80 per day wont generate any interest, dont have to withdraw all 10 pockets daily.

you can gather your 6.80 until it totals up to around RM61 threshold then withdraw it to main pocket lor. then that 61 can generate 1 cents

the best combo for this is to use both gx and rize
if you do this then you in the end you will get slightly more than the 1.50 or 1.80..

if you dont do this, also doesnt matter. then you just get the 1.50 or 1.80 generated solely from the RM590 savings upfront.

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 7 2024, 06:09 PM

literally first thing I see on the homepage.

thanks for the info!

Done transferred 49410 from rize to gx. No issues on all 3 accounts.

Instantaneously reflected as well

it seems GX calculation messed up somewhere, cause it doesnt make sense. 4941 x 2% /366 = 0.27 exactly.

- those who have clean 4941.00 in pocket only get 0.67 cents (0.41 + 0.26)
- those have some leftovers 4941.xx in pocket get 0.68 cents (0.41 + 0.27)

mine was a clean pocket, so i also got 0.67 x 10 pockets
10 cents missing basically

im guessing for tmr i should start getting 0.68 based on my finding above.. we'll see.

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 02:02 AM

you can check in your pockets page the total amount you get for each pocket.
mine shows 0.67 x 10 pockets. i had 4941.00 each pocket

i suspect its got to do with whether you had 4941.00 or 4941.xx inside the pocket.
based on what i observe so far:
- those who got 0.67 had 4941.00 in pocket prior
- those who got 0.68 had 4941.xx in pocket prior

feel free to chime in if your case was not like the above. i.e. you had 4941.xx but got 0.67 also, or you had 4941.00 but get 0.68

most likely GX calculations messed up somewhere to have such a difference.
and if my theory is true, then for tomorrow i should be getting 0.68 already since my pocket now got 4941.67

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 02:10 AM

is it regarding the 4941 pocket getting 0.67 instead of 0.68?

logically shouldn't have any issue cause 4941 x 2% /366 = 0.27 exactly << there's nothing to even round up or down from.

but some people (myself included) get 0.26 while others get 0.27, which like i mentioned earlier based on my observation had to do with whether you had 4941.00 or 4941.xx in pocket prior..

thanks for confirming.
seems like what i said earlier is true then..



no issue actually, i mean yea there is one now for those who had .00 in pocket compared to the others with .xx, but that one got to do with gx backend more so than the interest crediting formula itself.

so 4941 is perfectly fine, and if im right, tomorrow's crediting will suddenly become the correct amount 0.68 because now i have .xx inside the pocket from today's crediting.

For for those late comers, do 4941.xx for first day to avoid this issue. Cause dont know when gx would fix it.

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 09:23 AM

Pretty sure for most of us it's never been about the cents and more towards the principle of getting what you are supposed to get.

So, did reading this thread's comments and typing out that condescending reply earned you any more extra cents compared to the others who posted regarding this?

how did you get 0.674?
mine shows 0.675. when rounded becomes 0.68

also it doesnt matter what you truncated first.
end result is the same. fact is 4941 should be getting 0.27 not 0.26.
the only factor is who gets 0.26 vs 0.27 is people who had clean pockets .00 or people who had some leftovers in pockets .xx

then this one becomes a math defining problem.
because past a lot of decimal points, eventually you will stumble into somewhere that either needs to be rounded down or up

in this case the calculator you used rounded down, to become like this.

interestingly here, even 1 cent will then make it round up.


IF GX uses this amount of decimal points, then it would totally make sense.

with that said, since this is a math defining thing, or whatever calculator GX uses that ultimately truncates the decimal points.
That's why i referred to official documentation from GX itself on how many decimals to use.

https://help.gxbank.my/deposits/Interest%2C...t_calculated%3F
11 decimal points.

hence you will get this:

and


This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 03:03 PM

explained below

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 03:17 PM

yes i realized when presented with the full 5% then you are right.

but since the issue is only on the 2% bonus interest not the 3% base interest

i will use GX exact formula to calculate the bonus interest
5%/366 - 3%/366 = 2%/366, you at least agree with me on this?



so 2%/366 to 11 decimal points gets this:



and with that you get this:
which should be then rounded to 0.27


full exact expression terms:
4941.00 * (5%/366) - 4941.00 * (3%/366) = 2% interest

4941.00 * (5%/366)
4941.00 * (0.00013661202) << taken 11 decimal points as per https://help.gxbank.my/deposits/Interest%2C...t_calculated%3F
= 0.67499999082
= 0.67 << rounded down as per https://help.gxbank.my/deposits/Interest%2C...t_calculated%3F
-
4941.00 * (3%/366)
4941.00 * (0.00008196721) << taken 11 decimal points as per above
= 0.40499998461
= 0.40 << rounded down as per above

0.67 - 0.40 = 0.27,

Look if you follow their formula, decimal places shouldn't even be a factor as you can see from above both cases are rounded DOWN, ultimately you should still get 0.27

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 03:49 PM

Why are you shifting the goal post now that i have provided you the exact calculations based on GX's own materials?
Plus the very fact you resorted to personal attacks from the beginning for no reason? It just shows you are not a man of much substance.

If I say, yes indeed GX bank robbed me of the 1 cent, you gonna blow? This affects you how? Will GX remove that 1 cent from you to give to me?

Since we are way past the point of being pedantic I will now say this in response to you and only to you.
GX bank did not rob me of the 1 cent, in fact GX bank robbed me of 10 cents since i have 10 pockets.

So, what's next? you going to give another substanceless statement like the other fella earlier "gO Do sOmEtHiNg MoRe pRoDuCtIVe CaN gEt MoRe ThAn 10 cEnTs" ??

No idea why people are so quick to lick up to corporations. Fact of the matter is, something so simple as this shouldn't even occur.

To people who very free to find it out (like me), how does this even negatively impact you in any way whatsoever?
In the end everyone else would benefit from this, no?
If you are not grateful someone else is doing the leg-work for you or think this doesn't affect you at all because its a small matter, then you need to think about the bigger picture.
Also, for 1 person that doesn't care about this, there will be another 1 person that cares about stuffs like this which would find the findings useful.

and the ironic thing is, you being riled up by me/us doing this, aren't you equally wasting as much time as me/us on this. So who's winning?

this is much clearer

so the issue wasn't on the 2% part but more on the 3% part

earlier we thought supposed to be 0.27/0.26
but all along it is correct @ 0.27

the mistaken part is the 3%, which is 0.40 not 0.41


This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 05:21 PM

im now clear on how 4941 can get 0.67 only, while 4941.01 can get 0.68
for 4941:
3% supposed to get 0.40
2% supposed to get 0.27
total = 0.67

for 4941.01:
3% supposed to get 0.41
2% supposed to get 0.27
total = 0.68

but then right.. take a look at GX calculation and how they credited:
for 4941: they credited 3% as 0.41 while 2% as 0.26

that's why earlier discussions were all fixated on the 0.26 vs 0.27, blindsided by this calculation that seemingly is just plain wrong, and we just assumed the 3% calculation is correct.




let me put this out first: yes it is correct then that 4941 would get 0.67 only. The end. There is no losses on anyone's part and GX did not shortchange anyone.

Now im just interested to find out how come they credit the 2% part as 0.26 and not 0.27, likewise for the 3% part as 0.41 and not 0.40

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 05:33 PM

and if we were to subject the 5% to same 15 decimals as the 3%, it would then yield 0.68, and 3% would yield 0.41, which in turn means 2% would be 0.27
and total get would then be 0.41 + 0.27 = 0.68

so the only explanation i can think of is, looks like somewhere along the line, gx wasnt consistent with their decimals usage?
not that we have any way of knowing/confirming as well. so these are just purely theoretical discussions to get an answer towards the discrepancies gx has shown.
No malice necessary, im down to assume it was an oversight by someone/somewhere.

but what i can definitely say is, there still is an inconsistency in GX's calculations because of it.

anyway, people have raised to CS regarding the 2% yielding 0.26 only instead of 0.27 << if you follow their materials down to a T, it is absolutely 0.27 and no way should get 0.26.
So lets see what the CS answers i guess.

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 06:54 PM

can suka hati choose whichever decimal point to take as reference for round up/down one meh?

by your logic if 5% take 3rd decimal round, then 3% should also be taking 3rd decimal. i.e. 0.67 - 0.40 = 0.27
if 5% take 4th decimal to round, then 3% should also be taking 4th decimal. i.e. 0.68 - 0.41 = 0.27

anyway as per their own statement given, they round to 2 decimal places and doing so by looking at the 3rd decimal place whether it is 5 and above to round up.
so we know it is definitely looking at 3rd decimal place.

whichever way you look at it, for the 2% the return of 4941 is most definitely 0.27. No buts or ifs regarding this.
The only way you could get 0.26 was if one part of the calculation used inconsistently with the rest of the calculation, i.e. the amount of decimals being counted when multiplying the interest with amount. Basically the one soonwai was showing above regarding the 15 decimals vs 11 decimals usage.

this i agree and i did say this:

This post has been edited by Optizorb: Apr 11 2024, 10:09 PM

firstly 3% / 366 = has unlimited amount of decimals.
if you allow your calculator to go up to 1000 decimals, it will show you 1000 decimals.


most programming languages have pre-defined amount of decimals to take. precision 15 in this case.
and to take up to 15 decimal points only, means the rest got truncated and rounded up/down.

the first 16 decimals of 3%/366 = 0.0000819672131147
to make it 15 decimals, the 16th decimal gets rounded (up in this case)

15 decimals = 0.000081967213115
11 decimals = 0.00008196721

in deciding to use 11 or 15 decimals for the calculation, will yield different results, and in our case, it has consequences that affects the final outcome for us.

if we take 15 decimals:
0.000081967213115 * 61 = 0.005000000000014999

we can leave behind the rest of the decimals as only the first 3 decimals are important in deciding whether GX pays out that interest.
and in this case, by using 15 decimals, the end output would be 0.005
When you round it according to GX's conditions. You get 0.01 and thus eligible for the minimum payout of at least 1 cent.

if we follow GX documentation, they take 11 decimals in their calculation examples:
0.00008196721 * 61 = 0.00499999981
leave behind the rest of decimals as we only look at first 3 decimals when determining the payout.
and in this case, by using 11 decimals, the end output would be 0.004
Again, round it according to GX's conditions. You get 0.00 and thus the minimum threshold is not achieved and hence no payout.

for your reference 8 decimals gets you: 0.00008197 * 61 = 0.00500017, 0.005 and this would be eligible for the payout after rounding

and finally, all this ties up to the kerfuffle the other day regarding the payout which GX gave.
The way they pay it out implies heavily that their math is funny.

Firstly take a look at this for 4941.00 deposit:


If you follow the 11 decimals which GX used in their documentation, there is no way 3%/366 * 4941 will get you 0.41.
11 decimals gets you: 0.40499998461 = 0.40 payout


So how did it show up as 0.41?
Because 15 decimals was used (just like in their main 3% calculation which enables RM61 to get 1 cent payout. and since this 3% is directly paid out like normal, so it makes sense here 15 decimals was used too)
15 decimals gets you: 0.405000000001215 = 0.41 payout


Now the tricky part comes in with their 2% bonus. and because their bonus is calculated as such 5% - 3% = 2%
If the decimals were consistent throughout when calculating the 5% portion and the 3% portion, the 2% portion will always get you 0.27 for 4941.00
It doesn't matter you used 11 or 15 decimals. So long as you stick with the same amount of decimals each time!


So how then did it show up as 0.26?
The answer: quite simply, GX cocked it up by not being consistent in decimal usage for their calculations.
We already know from above that their 3% main portion was calculated using 15 decimals, despite their documentation examples showing them calculate using 11 decimals only.
Since this raya bonus is a new thing, what if then the 5% portion was calculated using 11 decimals just like in their documentation, while the 3% portion remains with the 15 decimals as it has always been the case?
You get:

Mystery solved.

Now if GX hadn't cocked it up like this and they used the same 15 decimals to calculate the 5% portion just like they do with the 3% portion, then 4941.00 will absolutely be able to get you 0.68 payout.
Because of this cock up, you need 4941.01 in order to get 0.68 payout.