FAQ — Can the Pi Core Team set a different price for mined Pi vs exchange Pi, or stop you selling them at the same price?
The question
“Can the Pi Core Team force a different price on mined Pi compared with Pi on an exchange, or prevent selling them at the same price?”
Short answer
No — not at the protocol level, and not per origin. For three independent reasons:
- The protocol cannot even express “mined vs exchange.” There is no per-unit origin (no tag). So there is nothing to attach a different price to.
- The protocol has no “price” at all. Price is a market phenomenon, not a ledger field. No entity sets it; buyers and sellers do, venue by venue.
- Native Pi has no issuer, so there are no asset-level controls (no freeze, no clawback, no transfer restrictions). The issuer cannot single out, price-tag, or block native Pi.
1. Why “different price by origin” is technically impossible
A price difference by origin would require the system to identify origin and apply a rule to it. Both are absent:
| Requirement for a per-origin price | Present in Pi? |
|---|---|
| A per-unit origin tag (“this π is mined”) | ❌ Does not exist |
| A price field in the protocol | ❌ Does not exist |
| An issuer rule that can target a subset of units | ❌ No issuer authority over native |
- No per-unit identity: the ledger stores
bal(account, native)as a single scalar — seeFAQ-MICRO-PI-ID.mdandSCOPE.md§7. - No price in the ledger: a payment is
bal(S) -= a ; bal(D) += a. There is no place to record “price”. - No issuer control: the native asset has no issuer, so there is no account that can freeze, clawback, or restrict it. Issued tokens have those powers; native Pi does not.
So “mining price” vs “exchange price” is not a switch anyone can flip — the concept has no representation in the protocol.
2. What the Core Team cannot do (on-chain)
| Cannot | Why |
|---|---|
| Set a different price for mined vs exchange Pi | No origin exists to target |
| Set the market price at all | Price is not a protocol field; it is set by markets |
| Freeze / clawback native Pi | Native asset has no issuer |
| Block a specific transfer of native Pi | Native asset has no transfer restrictions |
| “Tag” Pi as mined so it can be treated differently | The ledger is immutable — even by the issuer |
Official corroboration (MiCA whitepaper, §F/§G):
G.3: “…immutable. No modifications … can be made by anyone, including the issuer.” G.11 (Transfer Restrictions): “Not applicable” F.6: “Pi Network does not maintain custody … native noncustodial Pi Wallet app … There are no rights or obligations associated with the Pi token.” E.2: “The issuer is seeking admission to secondary trading only, through which the issuer will not gain any direct proceeds.” 🔗 https://minepi.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/MiCA-Whitepaper-Pi-1.pdf
3. What the Core Team can do (off-chain — this is the honest part)
Their power is off-chain and application-level, never per-coin:
| Can (off-chain) | What it affects |
|---|---|
| Control Pi Browser / app platform, SDK and Platform API keys | whether an app runs — not wallets |
| Manage KYC and the mining/migration process | onboarding — who gets to migrate |
| Operate their own apps / run their own wallets | their own accounts only |
| Ask venues for policy changes (listing, KYC, region) | a venue’s rules — not the asset |
| Distribute mining rewards by their own formula | how much is mined — not a per-coin tag |
None of these can set a price for native Pi, nor target “mined” vs “exchange” units — because units are not identifiable and the ledger has no price.
4. The only technically-possible “two prices” route — and it isn’t native Pi
If someone wanted two different prices, they would need two different assets:
| What you hold | Is it native Pi? | Can it have different rules/price? |
|---|---|---|
| native Pi on-chain (your wallet) | ✅ Yes | No — one asset, one market basis |
| an IOU on a venue (internal balance) | ❌ No | Yes — the venue’s terms (risk/limits) |
| a wrapped Pi (e.g. WPI on another chain) | ❌ No | Yes — that token’s issuer sets rules |
👉 Any “special price” scheme is about a different asset (IOU/wrapped/token), not native Pi. It does
not change native Pi’s fungibility. This is the single real distinction — always check asset_type and
issuer.
5. Market reality: one asset, slightly different prices (not by origin)
Even a single native asset can trade at slightly different prices across venues — due to fees, liquidity, depth, access/region limits, and trading pairs. Examples:
- Pi across exchanges: small spread (e.g. OKX vs Gate ≈ 0.12%). 🔗 https://cryptorank.io/price/pi-network-1/arbitrage
- Bitcoin “Kimchi premium”: the same BTC ~2.48% higher in Korea. 🔗 https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kimchi-premium.asp
👉 A price difference reflects venue/liquidity conditions, not a different origin or a different
asset. Price ≠ origin. (See FAQ-FUNGIBILITY-VS-PRICE.md.)
6. Conclusion
Different price by origin? → impossible: no origin to target, no price field
Prevent selling? → impossible on-chain: no issuer, no transfer restrictions
Set the market price? → no entity can; markets set prices
Their real power? → off-chain / app-level only (platform, KYC, migration)
Neither the Core Team nor anyone else can price native Pi by origin, or block its sale, at the protocol level. Mined Pi and exchange Pi are the same native asset — π = π.
Sources
- MiCA Whitepaper (F.6, F.13, F.14, G.3, G.4, G.11, E.2): https://minepi.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/MiCA-Whitepaper-Pi-1.pdf
- Pi Platform API (
PaymentDTO, no price/origin): https://github.com/pi-apps/pi-platform-docs/blob/master/platform_API.md - Stellar — Accounts (native asset has no issuer; scalar balance): https://developers.stellar.org/docs/learn/fundamentals/stellar-data-structures/accounts
- CryptoRank — Pi price across venues: https://cryptorank.io/price/pi-network-1/arbitrage
- Investopedia — Kimchi Premium: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kimchi-premium.asp
- Internal:
SCOPE.md·FAQ-FUNGIBILITY-VS-PRICE.md·FAQ-MICRO-PI-ID.md