The growing popularity of Pi Network, a cryptocurrency project that once promised easy and free mining through smartphones, is now overshadowed by increasing concerns over its SuperNode mechanism and the platform’s lack of decentralization.
Is Pi Network Truly Decentralized?
The debate around Pi Network’s decentralization has intensified following the introduction of its SuperNode structure. While the platform claims to operate on the principles of decentralization, several analysts and users argue that control over the blockchain remains largely in the hands of the Pi Core Team (PCT).
SuperNodes in the Pi Network are positioned as the backbone of the blockchain, responsible for validating transactions and maintaining the ledger’s integrity. However, their selection process is far from open or transparent. As per Pi Network’s own statements, SuperNodes are initially appointed by the Core Team, requiring constant uptime and powerful hardware — conditions that raise doubts about accessibility and decentralization.
Lack of Transparency and Reward Issues
The controversy deepened when several Node operators shared on online forums that they had not received any Pi rewards for months despite contributing to the network’s operation. Furthermore, many users suspect that the eligibility criteria for SuperNode operation secretly favor individuals with insider connections or expensive computing setups, contradicting Pi Network’s claim of being “a cryptocurrency for everyone.”
This lack of transparency has fueled skepticism about whether token distribution is genuinely fair or controlled by a select few behind closed doors.
Centralized Control and Limited Validator Network
Unlike established decentralized blockchains like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which boast thousands of independently operated nodes, Pi Network’s validation process appears tightly managed. Data from PiScan reveals that the network initially operated with only three SuperNodes, all controlled by the core team in Canada and Finland. Although this number has reportedly grown to 42, questions around centralized control and limited decision-making continue to surface.
Additionally, it has been observed that approximately 62.8 billion Pi tokens are stored in just six wallets controlled by the Pi Core Team, along with another 20 billion tokens in roughly 10,000 unlisted wallets linked to the team. This concentration of token ownership leaves little room for community governance, a core principle of blockchain decentralization.
Industry Experts Raise Red Flags
Prominent cryptocurrency analysts have openly criticized Pi Network’s model. Justin Bons, founder and CIO of Cyber Capital, described Pi Network as a scam, calling its mining scheme “pointless” and likening it to a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) structure designed to lure in uninformed users without delivering real blockchain value.
Bons also criticized Pi Network’s “lock Pi” mechanism, which encourages users to lock their tokens for years in exchange for higher mining rates — a tactic he believes is aimed at artificially inflating token demand while benefiting insiders.
Adding to the controversy, Ben Zhou, CEO of leading crypto exchange Bybit, has previously labeled Pi Network as “more dangerous than meme coins,” citing lack of transparency and questionable governance.
Community Doubts and Market Performance
Launched in 2019 with promises of accessible mining through mobile apps, Pi Network initially attracted millions of users globally, particularly in countries like Vietnam. However, after years of delays, its mainnet launch finally took place in February 2025, allowing users to trade Pi tokens on exchanges.
Despite the much-anticipated launch, Pi’s market performance has been disappointing. After reaching a peak price of $3 in February 2025, Pi’s value plummeted to under $1 within a month, further eroding investor confidence.
While Pi Network was marketed as a decentralized, user-friendly cryptocurrency, the emergence of its SuperNode system, lack of validator transparency, and questionable token distribution practices suggest otherwise. The project’s operational structure, controlled validator network, and insider token allocations reveal significant centralization risks. For crypto investors and blockchain enthusiasts, these developments serve as a reminder to thoroughly evaluate a project's governance, transparency, and decentralization claims before participating.
