Explore whether Pi Network is a genuine opportunity or a cleverly disguised illusion. | Credit: CCN
- Pi Network’s user base does not seem to align with reality: Pi Network reports the platform has more than 60 million users, yet the significantly lower number of wallets and even fewer active wallets reveal a potential discrepancy in its claims.
- Inflation undermines Pi’s long-term value: Pi’s circulating supply has doubled within a year. Inflation at this pace could drive the token price toward dilution, putting users at a disadvantage.
- Pi’s “mining” mechanism and data concerns: Pi Network promotes its mobile mining as innovative, but the button-tapping method provides little resemblance to traditional mining. The presence of ads and mandatory KYC suggests the platform may prioritize data collection rather than delivering real value to its users.
Pi Network’s rise has been nothing short of meteoric, with more than 60 million users worldwide reportedly engaging in daily button-pressing to mine Pi coins on their smartphones. The appeal lies in its simplicity: Mining cryptocurrency without the need for high energy consumption, technical expertise or costly equipment.
Users can start mining with just a mobile device, making it both cost-effective and extremely beginner-friendly, as it requires no knowledge of blockchain technology or complicated setups.
Yet, beneath this inviting simplicity, deeper questions arise. Is Pi truly democratizing crypto mining, or are users just pawns in a system that capitalizes on their shared trust?
In this edition of CCN Reports, we seek to answer an essential question: Is Pi Network a genuine opportunity or a cleverly disguised illusion? We examine three key aspects: Investment potential, time commitment and security risks.
The delays in launching its Mainnet and Pi’s distinctive mobile-mining method could either indicate underlying issues or signify the careful, methodical approach required to build something groundbreaking.
Where Are the Wallets? Pi’s User Numbers Don’t Add Up
The most striking aspect of Pi Network is the vast community it claims to have attracted. In a press release on June 28, Pi Network announced that it had more than 60 million users, with 12 million being KYC-verified, meaning they are authenticated, real individuals.
At first glance, Pi Network’s social media presence appears substantial, with 94,000 followers on Reddit, 3.3 million on Twitter and 1.5 million on YouTube. However, these figures don’t seem to align with its claimed massive user base.
The problem is that there’s no definitive way to confirm the 60 million users without relying on Pi Network’s claims. The only other option is to examine the blockchain data from various Pi Network explorers.
For this report, we used two explorers: ExplorePi and Pi Door. ExplorePi shows more than 6.19 million users, whereas Pi Door indicates around 6.15 million wallets.
Despite the similar figures, a significant discrepancy is evident. With 60 million users, why are there only about 6.2 million wallets—just 10% of the total user base? Even more concerning is that these wallets represent only 51% of the KYC-verified users. So, where are the remaining millions?
It’s important to note that these blockchain explorers only track Mainnet activity, and not everyone has migrated from Testnet to Mainnet yet. Plus, in order to complete the KYC process, one must have a Pi wallet.
KYC verification is a necessary step in migrating balances from Testnet to Mainnet. Without completing KYC and making the transition, users are essentially stranded and are unable to move their Pi to exchanges in the future or fully participate in the network’s ecosystem. Hence, the remaining 5.8 million KYC-verified users probably haven’t made the transition.
Many users are still waiting for their wallets to be approved for migration, with some reportedly stuck in this process for years . It’s possible that some users might be unaware they need to migrate, opted out of the KYC process, have forgotten about Pi, or have left the network. Inactive wallets are still counted as users.
Including an additional 12 million individuals still leaves a gap of 36 million users, who are effectively invisible (Figure 1). From a data standpoint, it appears more like an inflated user count rather than a clear explanation of who these users are or if they ever existed.
The activity levels of existing wallets aren’t significantly more encouraging. The peak daily active wallets hit 40,500 in July 2022, with another spike of 35,200 in June 2024. On average, only about 10,000 wallets are active each day.
Pi Network’s full Mainnet release is yet to be fully launched, and its ecosystem remains underdeveloped; having 0.16% of wallets active isn’t necessarily poor in this context. For comparison, Ethereum (ETH)—which has been live since 2015 and has a well-established ecosystem—only has 0.12% of its wallets active daily.
The Inflation Problem Pi Network Doesn’t Talk About
The issue of inflation is something the Pi Network doesn’t seem to address. Determining the historical supply of Pi is challenging, as this information has never been made available. However, a BSCN article from August 2023 indicates that 1.97 billion Pi had migrated to Mainnet by that time, with 1.29 billion locked by users (Figure 2).
As of Sept. 26, 2024, a total of 4.07 billion Pi had been migrated, with 1.35 billion remaining locked, according to Pi Door. This reflects a 106.6% increase in supply in a little more than a year.
That level of inflation is devastatingly high. Inflation at this rate ensures that value won’t be sustained, which is ironic given the Pi whitepaper’s strong criticism of Bitcoin’s perceived shortcomings.
Pi positions itself as a superior peer-to-peer electronic cash system, yet Bitcoin’s inflation rate stands at just 0.8% annually. The closest comparison to Pi’s inflation might be Worldcoin, which saw a 261% increase in supply from September 2023 to September 2024 (Figure 3).
Why is inflation such a major concern? Inflation dilutes value. When the supply of an asset increases too rapidly without a matching increase in demand, it loses its value over time.
Simply put, Pi’s rapidly growing supply means each new token is worth less than the one before it, assuming demand doesn’t rise proportionately.
If the circulating supply of Pi increases from 4 billion today to 8 billion tomorrow, but the demand from individuals or businesses remains unchanged, each Pi will lose buying power. Consequently, Pi holders will see their holdings’ value decrease simply because there are more Pi tokens in circulation.
Moderate inflation isn’t necessarily harmful; it can keep the economy dynamic and even reward those who maintain the network. But what Pi is experiencing goes far beyond “healthy inflation.” It’s expanding at a pace that appears to undermine the token’s value.
The whitepaper mentions that Pi Network is capped at 100 billion tokens. Here’s where it gets even more alarming—the whitepaper itself acknowledges the likelihood of further inflation:
“Also, in the future, for the health of the network and ecosystem, the network may face questions such as whether there needs to be any inflation after the completion of the distribution of the 100 Billion Pi. The inflation may be necessary to further incentivize contributions through more mining rewards, make up for any loss of Pi from circulation due to accidents or death, provide for more liquidity, mitigate hoarding that inhibits usage and utility creation, etc. At that time, the foundation and its committees specialized in these matters will organize and guide the community to reach a conclusion on the matter in a decentralized way.”
Where Does Inflation in Pi Originate From?
The inflation in Pi primarily stems from its mining rewards. Pi’s reward system is based on several variables:
- Base Mining Rate (B), which is dynamically adjusted;
- Lockup Reward (L);
- Security Circle Reward (S);
- Referral Team Reward (E);
- Node Reward (N);
- App Usage Reward (A);
- Future Contributions (X).
The primary concern here is the Base Mining Rate (B). Calculating B independently is a complex undertaking, as it involves network-wide data that isn’t publicly accessible, like the total Pi mined by all users the previous day and the total of all active users’ mining coefficients.
However, the issue isn’t just about calculating it. The Pi Network team has designed a complicated reward system that, despite its intricacies, leads to significant inflation. If this continues unchecked, it will erode any potential value Pi might have.
Pi’s $30 Value Is a Joke—Here’s Why
Pi Network continues to operate in its “Enclosed Network” phase following the Mainnet launch in December 2021. Despite Mainnet being live, it functions within a firewall.
Users who complete KYC can transfer their balances to Mainnet, but they are confined to Pi’s ecosystem. They can trade with each other and buy some services from Pi apps, but their activities are limited to this environment.
As the world waits for Pi to open up, crypto exchange HTX offers a Pi Network “I Owe You” (IOU). But these IOU contracts are not actual Pi—they are just promises to deliver Pi once it’s available. They serve as speculative placeholders that people trade based on the anticipated future worth of Pi.
The IOU price of $31.57 on HTX as of Sept. 26, 2024, lacks any substantive correlation with Pi’s current usability or market presence (Figure 4). These prices are indicative of expectations, which can sometimes inflate perceptions beyond the bounds of reality.
Taking Pi’s supply into account, the inflated and misleading nature of the IOU price becomes apparent. The unlocked supply of Pi stands at 4.07 billion, with 1.35 billion still locked, yet these locked coins should still be considered part of the circulating supply.
The rationale is that these coins were once part of the available supply before users locked them up after mining. They had circulated, and users later locked them voluntarily to maximize their mining rewards. Reintroducing them brings Pi’s total supply to 5.42 billion.
With HTX’s IOU price, Pi’s speculative market cap hits a staggering $171 billion. Think about that—this number positions Pi just below Ethereum (ETH), the second-largest cryptocurrency (Figure 5).
It’s unreasonable because Pi lacks the broad use case or ecosystem of BNB, Solana (SOL), or Toncoin (TON), yet it surpasses them in value at this inflated market cap. Its appeal rests on the ease of mining on mobile phones, but this ease of access doesn’t necessarily translate to long-term value.
Considering that Pi’s codebase is largely derived from Stellar with only minor tweaks, it’s hard to rationalize its valuation being much higher than Stellar’s, which stands at approximately $3 billion.
Assuming Pi’s valuation surpasses current estimates, a $5-billion market cap appears to be the maximum achievable at this stage. Consequently, Pi’s price would stabilize at around $0.92 per coin. However, this calculation does not consider the effects of inflation and the anticipated sell-off once the blockchain transitions to the open network phase.
With a maximum supply of 100 billion Pi and a market cap of $5 billion, the price per coin could potentially drop to $0.05 once all Pi are mined.
Should We Stop Calling It Mining—More Like Screen Tapping?
“We define ‘mining’ more broadly than its traditional meaning equated to executing a proof-of-work consensus algorithm as in Bitcoin or Ethereum”—Pi Network’s whitepaper articulates it with a level of self-certainty that verges on defiance. Nonetheless, the terminology of “mining” is well-defined, and Pi Network cannot simply redefine it to serve its own ends.
When it comes to cryptocurrency, mining means validating transactions and securing the network. For Bitcoin, this process is not merely symbolic; it involves machines that solve complex mathematical puzzles. These machines utilize measurable amounts of electricity and computational power to validate blocks and create value.
Proof of Work (PoW) is resource-intensive and costly, but these attributes are what make it secure. Proof of Stake (PoS) is more energy-efficient, yet it mandates validators to lock up their assets, directly linking their financial commitment to the network’s security. Both methods have real stakes involved. Pi Network, however, falls short in this regard.
Pi adopts its consensus mechanism from Stellar’s Federated Byzantine Agreement (Figure 6). This system swaps out computational power for trust-based quorums, where nodes rely on the trustworthiness of their peers instead of raw computational effort. When a sufficient number of trusted nodes agree, the transaction is confirmed.
The strength of Stellar’s model is anchored in its validators, which are usually banks or financial institutions. These entities have a strong incentive to act with integrity because they depend on the network for operations like cross-border payments. Their reputations are at stake, so their need to uphold trust and reliability ensures their honest participation, thereby making the system effective.
The concentration of trust within the Stellar network often centers around a limited number of entities, usually controlled by the Stellar Development Foundation. The collapse or misconduct of these entities poses a significant risk to the system’s overall integrity.
Unlike Bitcoin or PoS platforms, where economic incentives drive miners and validators to act correctly, Stellar relies on the good faith of its participants. Pi Network inherits these vulnerabilities but lacks the transparency Stellar has developed over time.
Pi lets regular users invite others with minimal oversight. This creates a growing web of trust, where one person vouches for another. But what happens if the foundation of this trust is flawed?
Imagine a scenario where bad actors infiltrate a network, vouching for one another and spreading without restraint. The stakes for these users? Virtually nil. Unlike PoW or PoS, there’s no substantial penalty for bad behavior.
In the absence of strong coordination friction , malicious actors can exploit the system by rapidly expanding their influence. Moreover, reducing the need for trust in a blockchain is essential to prevent compromising its security .
Pi categorizes its users into five types (Figure 7):
- Pioneer: A user who taps a button daily to prove they aren’t a robot.
- Contributor: A user who provides a list of trusted Pioneers to create a “trust graph.”
- Ambassador: A user who recruits new members into the network.
- Developer Ambassador: A user who recruits software developers for the network.
- Node: A Pioneer who also runs node software on their desktop. This is the closest group to traditional mining in crypto, however, Pi’s consensus mechanism doesn’t require traditional mining tasks. It would be more accurate to refer to “miners” as validators and the process as “validation.”
The majority of Pi’s users (Pioneers, Contributors, and Ambassadors) do not significantly contribute to network security. Their participation neither validates transactions nor safeguards the system. Only the Nodes are essential for Pi’s operation, while the rest merely inflate the user base without serving a real function.
Pi Network touts its commitment to decentralization, yet the only Mainnet nodes currently operating are controlled by the Pi Network team. While the whitepaper criticizes Bitcoin for centralization, Pi’s network is still centralized in the hands of its own team.
The participation of millions in a system that remains centralized is a curious case, as this raises the question: What compels these users to invest their time and resources in a network that hasn’t fully decentralized?
It all comes down to the illusion of mining. By encouraging users to tap their screens once a day, Pi Network creates the pretense of participation. However, this action doesn’t validate transactions or secure the network, acting merely as a ploy to retain user interest.
How Pi Network Keeps You Hooked
Habits often start innocently. Logging into Pi Network for the first time feels simple: You tap a button and receive a small amount of Pi coins. It’s almost effortless. But soon, this seemingly effortless action becomes a daily ritual.
The app’s notification acts as a trigger, prompting users to tap again without a second thought. What started as a conscious choice turned into a habitual routine.
In “Atomic Habits,” James Clear explains that habits are formed through small actions repeated consistently over time (Figure 8). For Pi Network users, the daily notification acts as the cue, the tap is the routine and the reward is the collection of Pi coins.
Over time, this repetition builds a habit loop that users hardly notice, as Charles Duhigg outlines in “The Power of Habit.” This transformation happens so subtly that users often fail to notice, making these behaviors harder to change as time passes.
Robert Cialdini’s “Influence” explains how daily routines fulfill a deeper psychological need for consistency. Once we commit to an action, we feel an inherent compulsion to continue, a phenomenon that grows stronger over time.
For many, the thought of stopping their daily Pi logins would be akin to admitting that all their previous efforts were in vain—a realization most find uncomfortable. The app effectively entangles users, making them complicit in their own entrapment.
Pi also incorporates a social element by enabling users to invite friends and build networks, thereby tapping into our fundamental human need for social validation. Participating alongside others cultivates a sense of belonging, making the platform more meaningful when friends are involved.
Social psychology suggests that people are more inclined to adopt behaviors observed in their friends and family (Bandura, 1977 ). Pi apparently leverages this instinct to draw users deeper into its ecosystem.
The phenomenon known as the endowment effect (Thaler, 1980 ) is playing a significant role in the Pi Network ecosystem. Users, despite the current lack of tangible value in Pi tokens, begin to feel a strong sense of ownership. This psychological bias leads to an increasing emotional attachment as their token holdings grow.
As the days blend into weeks and the weeks into months, Pi users apparently find themselves ensnared by the sunk cost fallacy. The longer they continue mining, the harder it becomes to stop, as each tap feels like a step closer to future value.
Continuing to mine Pi becomes easier as users convince themselves that the future payoff will justify their efforts despite contrary evidence. Behavioral economist Thaler refers to this as the trap of commitment: The more one invests, the harder it becomes to acknowledge when something is no longer beneficial.
Pi Network employs subtle methods to enhance community pressure. By enabling users to ping idle members of their network, the platform fosters a form of social accountability, encouraging continuous participation.
Pi Network has effectively eliminated the typical barriers to entry associated with cryptocurrency mining, unlike traditional cryptocurrencies, which require specialized hardware, technical expertise, and often significant financial investment.
Lastly, what makes it harder to leave Pi is the ever-present hope that the tokens will one day hold real value. This phenomenon taps into confirmation bias, where users, after accumulating Pi, seek information that validates their decision (Nickerson, 1998 ). Believing in Pi’s future becomes easier as it justifies the time and effort already invested.
A Closer Look at the Founders’ Background
In the context of Pi Network, reviewing the academic work and professional background of its founders is essential.
Dr. Nicolas Kokkalis, Head of Technology at Pi Network, has consistently focused on crowdsourcing, automation and minimizing user effort while maximizing engagement.
He began his academic journey with a BS and MS in Computer Science, which paved the way for his Ph.D. at Stanford University. Following this, he continued his research as a Postdoctoral Scholar in Stanford’s Computer Science department.
His projects TaskGenies and EmailValet heavily utilized crowdsourcing to distribute tasks, engaging users without requiring deep involvement. Pi reflects this model through its “mining” and community-driven KYC process.
Dr. Chengdiao Fan, Head of Product at Pi Network, completed her Ph.D. in Anthropological Sciences at Stanford University, specializing in human behavior and human group studies. Her subsequent research has concentrated on human-computer interaction and social computing.
Together with her husband , Nicolas Kokkalis, Fan co-authored the Founder Center . This initiative focused on helping entrepreneurs connect with key resources, including investors and mentors.
Rather than relying on direct contacts, the platform allows individuals to leverage their extended network through referrals.
The idea behind the Founder Center was to make it easier for people to access resources and grow their networks by using a system that values social trust. This method is strikingly similar to Pi Network’s model, which relies on trust circles and referrals to build its user base.
The third co-founder and former Head of Community at Pi Network, Vince McPhillip, is a social movement builder with credentials from Yale and Stanford who is dedicated to transforming societal norms around wealth creation and distribution.
“My greatest passion is bringing people together in ways such that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. I’ve spent most of my academic and professional career building collectively intelligent systems,” McPhillip said in an interview.
However, he eventually left the project due to internal disagreements. In 2020, McPhillip filed a lawsuit accusing his former partners of sidelining him and misappropriating company funds. The lawsuit claimed that his ownership was diluted and his role within the company was undermined.
McPhillip concluded that Kokkalis and Fan’s issues “have also impaired my ability to fulfill my role as CEO by forcing me to dedicate an increasing share of my time to resolving interpersonal disputes and managing the resultant hostile workplace.”
In April 2020, he announced his intention to step away from the alleged hostile work environment to reflect on company matters. Kokkalis and Fan declared that McPhillip had “abandoned his post” and “effectively resigned.”
They refuted McPhillip’s allegations, claiming his dismissal was due to breaches of the company’s code of conduct. The lawsuit was settled in July 2023 during the discovery phase.
5 Years In, Pi Network’s Accomplishments Are Underwhelming
Five years have passed since Pi Network’s debut in 2019. However, its app still feels like a relic from the early 2010s: The outdated user interface starkly contrasts with the sleek, modern designs users expect today.
The interface is clunky, lacks seamlessness and is visually unappealing. This doesn’t align with the image of a pioneering crypto project.
Pi Network’s whitepaper, or what it refers to as such, lacks the depth and clarity expected from such documents. Traditionally, whitepapers provide a comprehensive analysis of a project’s mechanics, technology and purpose, as exemplified by Bitcoin , Ethereum , and Solana .
The Pi Network’s document reads more like a brief overview—it skims over key details and fails to dive into the specifics.
A more troubling issue is the delay in the Mainnet launch. While major blockchain projects like Ethereum, Cardano (ADA) and Ripple (XRP) achieved a functioning Mainnet within two years, Pi has extended this process beyond five. (Table 1: Blockchain Mainnet Build Time Comparison. Credit: CCN).
| Cryptocurrency | Years in Development |
|---|---|
| Pi Network | 5.5 years |
| Ethereum | 2 years |
| Cardano | 2 years |
| Solana | 3 years |
| Dogecoin | 2 hours |
| Ripple | 2 years |
| Polkadot | 4 years |
| Cosmos | 5 years |
For comparison, Polkadot (DOT) and Cosmos (ATOM), which took a bit longer at four and five years respectively, had complex architectures that justified the delays. Polkadot introduced parachains and cross-chain functionality, while Cosmos developed an inter-blockchain communication protocol. Both are fundamentally ambitious projects.
In contrast, Pi Network lacks these justifications. It’s a relatively straightforward concept. Technically, Pi Network is a fork of Stellar, meaning it inherits much of Stellar’s blockchain architecture.
Developers didn’t need to start from scratch. Interestingly, Dogecoin (DOGE), a fork of Litecoin (LTC), was created in just two hours and was immediately ready for launch.
What’s even more puzzling is that Pi, which boasts two Stanford PhDs among its founders, has shown lackluster progress. With no complex technical barriers to overcome, it begs the question: What is Pi Network doing with all this time?
It appears that Pi may be more focused on collecting extensive user data than advancing its cryptocurrency project.
Is Pi Network a Data Harvesting Scheme?
When users press the button to “mine” Pi, they are confronted with an advertisement. More concerning is that these ads are designed to be unskippable, lacking any “X/Close” button for closure and any interaction with the screen redirects users straight to the ad’s download page.
While the Pi Network app offers to disable ads, this reprieve is temporary, lasting only two weeks. After 14 days, ads reappear. Although it’s commendable that Pi provides an ad-disable option, the automatic reactivation prompts questions about the app’s user-centric approach. Why does this feature toggle back on automatically?
The explanation given for the ad toggle is questionable. The accompanying note says, “Help cover the server and maintenance costs associated with your account by having ads.” Yet, considering that Pi Network is built on Stellar, known for its low energy consumption of around 0.03 Wh per transaction, this raises doubts about the validity of the provided reasoning.
According to the Pi Door blockchain explorer, the network averages approximately 10,000 transactions per day, consuming about 300 Wh per day. This energy usage is comparable to leaving a single light bulb on for a few hours. Over a month, this translates to approximately 9 kWh, which is negligible in terms of server load.
Considering the simplicity of the app and that not all 60 million users are active simultaneously, the actual server costs are likely minimal. It’s reasonable to assume that server maintenance does not constitute a major expense in their budget.
At its peak, apps like the casual mobile game Flappy Bird made $50,000 per day from in-app ads. If even a fraction of Pi’s supposed 60 million users are active, it could easily earn thousands of dollars each day, adding up to hundreds of thousands per month. The justification for these ads becomes murkier when you realize the potential profits.
There’s no precedent for blockchain projects incorporating ads in their proprietary software. The only comparable case seems to be Hamster Kombat, a mobile game with a similar “tap-to-earn” mechanic.
In a move raising privacy concerns, Pi Network requires users to undergo a stringent KYC process. This involves submitting sensitive personal data, including a selfie video and a photograph of your passport or ID.
Concerns are mounting over Pi Network’s KYC process, which allows users to act as validators. This means personal data, such as selfie videos and passport photos, could be handled by random individuals.
Although sensitive information, like your passport details, is automatically redacted , there is a possibility that this feature won’t work properly. If it fails, users might accidentally submit their documents without realizing that personal information remains visible.
This creates a risk for your personal data to be exploited, potentially leading to identity theft or other malicious actions.
An intriguing aspect is that KYC-verified users are considerably more valuable to advertisers. This results in better-targeted ads and higher conversion rates. The greater the number of authenticated and verified users on Pi Network, the more they can benefit financially from their ad partnerships.
Why does Pi require such extensive personal data? In a world where ads can already gather detailed behavioral information without needing a passport, this approach seems excessive. We’ve accepted the reality of surveillance capitalism, where platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and TikTok effectively target ads based on user habits without demanding ID verification.
Pi Network takes it a step further by making KYC mandatory for transferring tokens. Additionally, you can’t transfer your referral Pi bonuses unless the people you referred also complete the KYC process.
The parallels to Worldcoin are striking, where people voluntarily exchanged their iris scans for a small amount of digital currency. In both cases, people are handing over highly sensitive biometric and personal data for questionable returns.
If that wasn’t concerning enough, let’s look into Pi Network’s terms of service . Upon closer inspection, several red flags become evident:
- Pi reserves the right to share your personal information with affiliates, service providers, and even KYC validators from your region. In practice, this means you have little control over who accesses your data;
- Your information can be transferred to servers outside your jurisdiction;
- In the event of a merger or acquisition, Pi can transfer your data to another entity.
Pi Network’s Android app permissions further draw attention. The app’s integration with advertising and analytics platforms allows for comprehensive tracking of user behavior, device specifics and location data.
The list of the project’s partners is notably long, featuring Amazon Advertisement, AppLovin, ChartBoost, Facebook Ads, Facebook Analytics, Google AdMob, Google Firebase Analytics, Huawei Mobile Services, IAB Open Measurement, ironSource, Mintegral, Pangle, Unity3D Ads.
A particularly alarming permission requested by Pi Network is “WRITE_SETTINGS,” specifically “com.huawei.android.launcher.permission.WRITE_SETTINGS” and “com.oppo.launcher.permission.WRITE_SETTINGS,” which grant the app the ability to modify system settings on your device.
Permissions of this nature are typically reserved for apps requiring deep system-level changes. Users often defend their use of platforms like Instagram or TikTok by saying, “My data is already out there.” However, Pi Network’s extensive access seems to go far beyond simple data harvesting.
Here’s why: Pi’s capability to modify launcher settings allows it to make persistent changes to your home screen without your consent, e.g., unwanted shortcuts or ads in prime locations that are difficult to remove.
Launcher permissions can also enable hidden background processes. This enables the app to obscure or disable critical settings, making it difficult for users to identify and remove problematic features or malware.
Conclusion
Pi Network portrays itself as a blockchain innovation, but when you look at the big picture, the reality doesn’t match the hype. For a project that relies on Stellar’s Consensus Protocol, the development period of 5.5 years is staggering.
The delays could be justified if Pi presented a groundbreaking architecture, but that’s not the case.
Pi’s centralization further contradicts its promises. Mainnet remains under the exclusive control of the core team’s nodes, which means that no external parties can validate transactions. This reveals a stark contrast between the project’s marketing and its operational reality.
Decentralization in the blockchain is characterized by distributed control, validators with stakes, minimized trust, and unrestricted participation. It operates without centralized actors, where incentives and cryptographic proofs replace the need for trust. Pi, however, maintains centralized control, masking it with marketing.
The so-called “mining” claims are misleading: Users don’t seem to be securing the network or validating transactions; they just tap their screens daily and get pre-minted coins in return.
This is compounded by Pi’s use of ads, which appear to generate substantial revenue under the pretext of “covering server costs.” This is despite Stellar’s blockchain being energy-efficient and the server load being minimal compared to the significant profit potential.
The introduction of mandatory KYC requirements changes the narrative entirely. Without it, Pi could be perceived as just another blockchain initiative, similar to many others that promise innovation but provide minimal tangible benefits.
CCN Reports is a regular series that delves into the details to provide in-depth analysis of cryptocurrencies and the companies associated with them. We aim to engage a global audience interested in what’s what, who’s who and perhaps even why’s that.
Hamster Kombat: Experts Weigh In on the Biggest Web3 Gaming Phenomenon
Telegram to Launch Gaming Accelerator Spurred by Notcoin (NOT) Success