Hi guys it's sasha, so i recently made a video highlighting how the incredibly popular safe moon token is a ponzi scheme and, unexpectedly, that video got really popular after setting impressive records for my tiny channel for the number of dislikes and 3 000 comments that at times Showed a distinct lack of rational argument. I asked my audience if it's worth doing a follow-up video, where i explain in a bit more detail. Some of the points that i didn't cover in the original video the majority voted in favor. So here goes now.

I know that this video is going to get exactly the same treatment, and i am okay with that. If you are a big, safe moon fan. I do, however, encourage you just to listen to the video first before you go and do your worst below, because there's some really important points that i want to make in the video so that, hopefully you can hear me out first off. I need to address an issue that the last video didn't make clear enough.

Let me make it patently clear why my opinion is that safe moon is a ponzi scheme and why it is different to most other cryptocurrencies and the market in general. The exact definition of a ponzi scheme from the collins dictionary is a fraudulent investment scheme in which funds paid in by later investors are used to pay artificially high returns to the original investors, thus attracting more funds with safe moon. The protocol relies on two specific ways in which this ponzi effect is generated. The first one is the redistribution of safe moon to existing holders, every time that other people go and do transactions specifically when new people go and buy into the ecosystem.

Now, in order to sell out of your savings position, the price has to go up by at least 20 percent in order to mitigate for the cost of buying into the position in the first place and then the cost of selling. At the end, this creates an unfortunate objective for the holder of any safe moon amount to pump the price, because you start off on such strong negative equity. Now the fact is all the pr and all the marketing associated with safe moon is literally telling you that it is going to the moon, which is a definition which sits a bit too close to the line of what i think is normally seen as acceptable by Regulator because it literally pretty much directly implies very high returns, so the design of safe moon has these two factors that by definition, as i just explained, make it a ponzi scheme. And then there is a very important point that seems to cause a lot of confusion.

There is a very big difference between investing in an asset that has intrinsic value versus investing in one whose entire value base is solely based on speculation. If i invest my money in the shares of a company, then the company will be producing and selling products and goods and services and whatever it is they do for years and decades and i, as a partial owner, will get to benefit from a share of those Proceeds other asset classes such as commodities and currencies they have utility, and this means that the asset has some kind of a function or a use. Oil, for example, is a raw material that can be producing energy. It can be used, produce, manufacture, lots of consumer goods.

Therefore, it has a price. The us dollar has the utility of being a method of exchanging and storing value. You can easily sell and buy goods by using dollars as the medium of that exchange and a lot of people around the world have a consensus that they are happy to use it. Safe moon, on the other hand, has zero utility - and this is another case where it's different to other cryptocurrencies.

It doesn't even have theoretical utility, because the 10 transaction fees mean it cannot reasonably be used as a method of exchanging or storing value unless the currency grows. In value by 20 percent, very very quickly between the time when you get some of that safe moon and when you next want to spend it, can a currency that grows 20 extremely quickly, have some kind of long-term future? Well, ask the waimer republic, zimbabwe or venezuela as to what happens in those circumstances. Now, if the alternative happens and the rate of growth actually stalls, then you're going to get into a situation where every new buyer will be in perpetual negative equity, which is exactly how ponzi schemes collapse now the big question: can you make money with it because a Lot of people listen to my point. In the original video sure, every ponzi scheme has winners, and some of the earliest entrants into the scheme will be the biggest winners, and a lot of people in this particular scheme will also make a lot of money.

I am not saying anything to the country, i'm not doubting that. The issue is that, at the end of one of these schemes, a much greater number of people will actually become losers, and the winners from one of these will be winners at the expense of those other people. So that's just something that you really need to go and have a think about. A lot of people pointed out in the original video that a prime reason why safe moon is a solid investment is because some of the currency is burnt, and i apparently missed that point out in a recent ama.

It was mentioned that this burn has now been automated, although since the protocol has actually not been updated, that doesn't really mean what you think it means it just means that, instead of having to literally press a button manually by the developers, they must have built some Kind of script - that's about it. The truth is almost all of the burning that has taken place so far only took place when the first launch happened, in fact, on their own website. You can go and find this information. It is incredibly clear.

223 trillion tokens were burned on launch and in the first two weeks since the launch, when very few people were on board at that point in time, 99.5 of all the tokens that were ever burned were burnt in that period. So since then, there's been pretty much. No manual burning whatsoever, there's a myth out there that half or a quarter of the transaction fee is burned and that's not the case. That is not how it works.

The very short white paper that is also in the website makes it extremely clear: no tokens are burned as part of the transaction. Five percent is redistributed to other holders, and five percent is split into two separate pots that go into the liquidity pool, which brings me very nicely to the certic audit, because this is something a lot of people who hold safe. Moon are extremely excited about and they pointed it out a lot in the previous video. I was told hundreds of times that this audit proves that i am wrong.

Well, let me show you if you go and read the report. The disclaimer at the end specifically states that this report is not nor should be considered an endorsement or disapproval of any particular project or team. This report is not, nor should be considered an indication of the economics or value of any product or asset created by any team of project that contracts certic to perform a security assessment. This report does not provide any warranty or guarantee regarding the absolute bug-free nature of the technology analyze, nor do they provide any indication of the technologies, proprietaries, business, business model or legal compliance.

Make sure you read it again, because this is incredibly important. It says this report should not be used in any way to make decisions around investment or involvement with any particular project. Certix lists what they do, what they look at at the beginning of this report. In short, if you don't want to go and read it, it says that they're basically going to review the code to make sure that the code works and works like it is intended.

It basically just checks that the code doesn't have errors. It doesn't assess the business of safe moon in any way whatsoever. It's just a technical report, but if you read the report, they actually do have some big issues highlighted and the one major issue is really big and it shouldn't be forgotten about what it really says. When you read about that issue, is that developers have direct access to the liquidity pool and whoever has the keys to those wallets can do whatever they want with the tokens in there.

This is something that i highlighted in the original video, but people who disagreed perhaps didn't quite read this certificate when they pointed that the report proves that i'm wrong now, the safe moon team have made a long reply, which i can roughly sum up as well. We won't do it because, if we did, we would end up going to prison. That is an interesting argument, because we have had many many cases somewhat recently, where that didn't stop people in the crypto space. Doing exactly that now, i am by no means in any way whatsoever, saying, alluding or implying that the team will be doing it.

I do not know them. I know nothing about their background. I have no way of knowing whether they have any malice in what they are trying to do, but the risk is there and the auditor, the certic audit, that people are pointing to is the one highlighting it. But then they also say that they have locked the liquidity pool for four years, the developers.

But when i went and looked at the transactions they've, provided they have four transactions that go into two separate pools and they only locked 41 percent of the first one and 33 of the second. Now that's not quite the same thing as saying that they have locked. Those pools, so i think it's a little bit disingenuous. The way that replied came about, but the same certic report also has a bombshell on something that most people probably wouldn't have read.

It's the very minor ssl 13 issue. It only classes as a minor, but it says that the owners can actually unlock locked contracts by following a short sequence of functions. Now i am not technical enough with the specifics of this particular thing that they're doing here, but can that mean that they can unlock locked amounts? I don't know, but it certainly sounds like something that needs a little bit more of a response than what i saw there. As with pretty much every other recommendation, this report, the official response is the team acknowledged the finding and given the deployed contract cannot be updated, decided to retain the code base unchanged so really important points here.

Are you need to make your own investing decisions? You need to go and do your own homework. Do not listen to people on the internet, including me to decide what you want to do with your money and where you want to go and put your money but make sure that you do go and do the homework don't fall for fomo. I am basing my opinion here based on the facts that i am presenting and i am showing you why it is that i have this opinion, but that's just it. It is my opinion.

You may have a different one and you need to make sure that you're happy with your particular view. Investing in crypto assets is incredibly volatile and carries a huge amount of risk. You sure could earn a huge amount of money. If you get in early and a lot of people will you also could lose a lot of money and you can lose it in a few seconds.

I hope you guys found this useful. If you have, please go and hit the like button, because this video is going to get a ridiculous number of dislikes just like the last one. Thank you so much for watching. I really really appreciate it and, as always i'll see you guys later, you.