π = π — Pi fungibility proof

A native Pi payment carries no observable per-unit mining origin on the Pi Mainnet ledger.

View the Project on GitHub aybvip/pi-fungibility

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

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:

👉 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