PI NETWORK: The Truth They DON’T Want You to Know!
Don't take this the wrong way. Just read on..
Pi Network’s got some serious secrets, and we’re spilling ALL the tea. Could this be the next crypto crash waiting to happen? Let’s dive in! The Numbers Don’t Lie: 89
Pi Network's lack of transparency, with no public audits and a pre-minted coin structure unlike Bitcoin's decentralized mining, contradicts blockchain principles, a concern echoed by kotigi.com in October 2024, which notes the need for third-party audits to build trust.
The post warns of Pi's rejection by major exchanges like Binance due to its centralized model, a point supported by its absence from top-tier platforms as of May 2025, per 99bitcoins.com, signaling broader market skepticism about its viability.
Then we asked Grok:
Are these accurate?
Here are Grok's reflections:
Let’s break down the claims made in the X post by Szymanski (@Szymansk_ii) about Pi Network, posted on May 15, 2025, and evaluate their accuracy based on available information, including the web search results provided and general knowledge about Pi Network as of May 16, 2025. The post raises several concerns about Pi Network, including its token distribution, centralization, transparency, and overall risk. I’ll address each major claim systematically.
Claim 1: 89 Billion Pi Coins Are Controlled by the Pi Core Team
The post states:
Total supply of Pi: 100 billion coins.
Circulating supply: 7.1 billion coins.
Total supply accounted for (circulating + locked): 11 billion coins.
Therefore, 100B - 11B = 89 billion Pi coins are controlled by the Pi Core Team, which is 89% of the total supply.
Analysis:
A web search result from ainvest.com (March 12, 2025) states that the Pi Core Team holds approximately 82.8 billion Pi coins, which is 82.8% of the total 100 billion supply. This figure is slightly lower than the 89 billion (89%) claimed in the post.
A reply to the post by @_Bandirao
provides a different breakdown: 65 billion for the community, 20 billion for the Core Team, 10 billion for the Pi Foundation, and 5 billion for liquidity. If true, the Core Team’s direct control would be 20 billion, not 89 billion, though the Pi Foundation’s allocation might still be under Core Team influence.
The circulating supply of 7.1 billion cited in the post isn’t directly corroborated by the web results, but ccn.com (January 2025) mentions ongoing supply increases due to migration, suggesting the circulating supply could be in this range by May 2025.
Pi Network’s tokenomics are not fully transparent, as noted in multiple sources (ccn.com, cointelegraph.com), making it hard to verify exact figures. However, the ainvest.com report aligns closely with the post’s estimate, suggesting that the Core Team (or related entities) controls a significant portion—likely between 82.8 billion and 89 billion.
Accuracy:
The claim of 89 billion is mostly accurate but slightly overstated compared to the ainvest.com figure of 82.8 billion. The lack of official transparency from Pi Network means both numbers are estimates, but the general concern about heavy centralization holds true. The reply from @_Bandirao
suggests a different allocation, but without official data, the higher estimate aligns with reported concerns.
Claim 2: Pi Network Is Highly Centralized
The post claims Pi Network is “centralized AF” because:
All coins are pre-minted and controlled by the Core Team.
There’s no decentralized mining like Bitcoin; instead, coins are distributed from a central wallet.
The Core Team holds all the power, making the project vulnerable to their decisions.
Analysis:
Pre-Minted Coins: The ccn.com article (January 2025) confirms that Pi Network’s “mining” is not true mining. Unlike Bitcoin, where miners solve cryptographic puzzles to secure the network and earn rewards, Pi users “mine” by tapping their screens, receiving pre-minted coins from a central pool. This matches the post’s claim.
Centralized Control: The ainvest.com report highlights centralization concerns, noting the Core Team’s 82.8% control of the supply, a limited number of nodes/validators, and lack of transparency in operations. This supports the post’s assertion that the project is highly centralized.
Comparison to Bitcoin: Bitcoin’s decentralized mining model distributes control across a global network of miners, whereas Pi’s model relies on the Core Team’s distribution, aligning with the post’s description.
However, a reply from @Uchenna13Moses
compares Pi to Bitcoin, noting that Satoshi Nakamoto holds 1.1 million BTC (about 5% of Bitcoin’s total supply). While true, Bitcoin’s decentralized consensus mechanism reduces the risk of Satoshi’s holdings compared to Pi’s centralized structure.
Accuracy:
This claim is accurate. Pi Network’s pre-minted coin model, lack of true mining, and Core Team control over most of the supply make it highly centralized, as confirmed by multiple sources (ainvest.com, ccn.com). The comparison to Bitcoin’s decentralization further highlights Pi’s centralized nature.
Claim 3: No Transparency or Audits
The post states:
Pi Network has never been audited.
The Core Team avoids outside scrutiny, raising questions about transparency.
Analysis:
The ainvest.com article (March 2025) explicitly states that analyzing Pi Network’s source code and on-chain data is challenging due to its “incomplete openness.” This lack of transparency aligns with the post’s claim.
The cointelegraph.com article (April 2025) notes that Binance and other major exchanges expect clear, public disclosures about token issuance, locking, and burning—disclosures Pi has not provided, further supporting the transparency concern.
No web results or public data as of May 2025 indicate that Pi Network has undergone an independent audit. In the crypto space, audits by reputable firms (e.g., CertiK, PeckShield) are standard for building trust, and Pi’s absence of such audits is notable.
Pi Network’s official communications (e.g., whitepapers, updates) have historically been vague about tokenomics and operational details, as noted in community discussions and analyses like those on kotigi.com (October 2024, not directly cited but referenced in related context).
Accuracy:
This claim is accurate. There’s no evidence of audits, and multiple sources confirm Pi Network’s lack of transparency, which fuels skepticism about its operations and security.
Claim 4: Pi Network Is a “Ticking Time Bomb” Due to Centralization Risks
The post warns:
The 89 billion Pi in one wallet could lead to a crash if the team dumps their stash (like Terra Luna).
A hack or rogue team member could collapse the project.
Pi’s centralization makes it inherently risky.
Analysis:
Risk of a Dump: The Terra Luna crash in May 2022 involved a death spiral where the UST stablecoin depegged, and LUNA’s value plummeted due to oversupply and panic selling. If the Pi Core Team controls 82.8–89 billion coins, a large-scale dump could indeed tank the price, especially with a circulating supply of only 7.1 billion. This risk is plausible and aligns with ainvest.com’s concerns about centralization posing risks as the network matures.
Hacking or Rogue Team Member: Centralized control increases the risk of hacks or insider malfeasance. For example, the 2014 Mt. Gox hack resulted in the loss of 850,000 BTC due to poor security practices. Pi’s lack of transparency (ainvest.com) and centralized wallet structure make this a valid concern, though no specific incidents have been reported as of May 2025.
General Risk: The ccn.com article questions Pi’s long-term viability, noting vulnerabilities inherited from its Stellar-based consensus model, which relies on participant good faith rather than economic incentives like Bitcoin. This supports the post’s broader warning about systemic risks.
Accuracy:
This claim is accurate in principle. While speculative, the risks of a price crash, hack, or collapse due to centralization are well-founded, given Pi’s structure and lack of transparency. The Terra Luna comparison is a reasonable analogy, though not a guaranteed outcome.
Claim 5: No Listings on Major Exchanges
The post claims:
Top-tier exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, Kraken, and Bybit won’t list Pi due to its centralization and risk.
Pi lacks partnerships with legitimate organizations.
Analysis:
Exchange Listings: The cointelegraph.com article (April 2025) confirms that major exchanges like Binance, Coinbase, and Kraken have not listed Pi, while smaller exchanges like OKX and Bitget have. It also notes that Bybit’s CEO reportedly called Pi Network a “scam,” reflecting skepticism from major players. This aligns with the post’s claim.
Reasons for Avoidance: Cointelegraph.com cites regulatory uncertainty, transparency issues, and Pi’s centralized model as reasons for avoidance by top exchanges, matching the post’s reasoning.
Partnerships: The ccn.com article lists Pi’s partners, including Amazon Advertisement, AppLovin, ChartBoost, Facebook Ads, Google AdMob, and others—mostly ad networks and analytics firms. These are not “partnerships with legit orgs” in the sense of blockchain or financial institutions (e.g., Chainlink, Visa), so the post’s claim about lacking significant partnerships holds some weight. However, the Pi Foundation’s $100M fund for startups (mentioned in replies) indicates some ecosystem development, though not necessarily with “legit orgs” as the post implies.
Accuracy:
The claim about major exchange listings is accurate—Pi is not listed on Binance, Coinbase, or Kraken as of May 2025, and the reasons cited (centralization, transparency) are valid. The claim about partnerships is partially accurate; Pi has some partnerships, but they’re not with major blockchain or financial entities, which may be what the post means by “legit orgs.”
Claim 6: Pi Could Turn Things Around, But It’s a High-Risk Gamble
The post suggests:
Pi could improve by releasing a roadmap, undergoing audits, and becoming more transparent.
Currently, it’s a high-risk investment, and users should “DYOR” (Do Your Own Research).
Analysis:
Potential for Improvement: The crypto-reporter.com article (May 2024) notes that Pi’s value could be realized if it lists on exchanges and builds utility through services, supporting the idea that Pi could turn things around. However, as of May 2025, no such changes (audits, major listings) have occurred, per cointelegraph.com.
High-Risk Nature: Pi’s price has dropped to $0.56 by April 2025 (cointelegraph.com), an 80% decline from its all-time high, reflecting market skepticism. Combined with centralization and transparency issues (ainvest.com, ccn.com), the “high-risk” label is justified.
DYOR Advice: This is standard crypto advice, especially for a controversial project like Pi, and aligns with the need for caution given the lack of transparency and exchange listings.
Accuracy:
This claim is accurate. Pi’s potential to improve exists, but as of May 2025, it remains a high-risk project due to its centralized structure, lack of transparency, and absence from major exchanges.
Overall Accuracy of the Post
The post’s claims are largely accurate but contain some nuances:
The 89 billion figure is slightly overstated compared to the 82.8 billion reported by ainvest.com, but the centralization concern is valid.
Claims about transparency, centralization, and exchange listings are well-supported by web results and general knowledge.
The “ticking time bomb” warning is speculative but grounded in reasonable risks, given Pi’s structure.
The partnership claim overlooks some ad-tech partnerships but is fair in noting the lack of major blockchain/financial collaborations.
Additional Context from Replies
@_Bandirao
’s Reply: The alternative token distribution (20B for Core Team, 65B for community) contradicts the post’s 89B figure. Without official data, both estimates are speculative, but the reply’s mention of a $100M Pi Foundation fund aligns with ecosystem growth efforts, as seen in the images shared by Szymanski in a follow-up.
Community Sentiment: Replies like @Euroking_fx
and @martinsjustin2
show frustration with influencers like Szymanski, accusing them of hypocrisy or negativity. This reflects a polarized community, with some defending Pi’s potential (e.g., @Uchenna13Moses
comparing it to Bitcoin) and others dismissing the criticism.
Conclusion
The X post’s claims about Pi Network are mostly accurate as of May 16, 2025, with minor discrepancies in the exact token distribution. Pi Network faces significant centralization risks, lacks transparency, and has been shunned by major exchanges, all of which align with the post’s warnings. However, the project’s future remains uncertain—while it’s a high-risk gamble now, improvements in transparency and decentralization could change its trajectory. Users should indeed “DYOR” and approach Pi with caution, as the post advises.
See the Grok's analysis here: https://x.com/i/grok/share/YhXkxEPqkE7mUddlGIQTAGeuW
What do you think?
