confronting the ceo who’s mad about reddit defamation

Welcome back to the void! We're getting a little petty today because a CEO asked me to investigate him after he accused, uh, Reddit of defaming him. So I looked into it. I don't remove Reddit posts, but I did think they had some points. The CEO says, "Okay, great! Well, let's have an interview." I say, "Fine." We planned it for Monday. Then on Monday, they dodged me and tried to get me to sign this, uh, insane legal agreement that would have prevented me from asking hard questions. Now, as a result, I openly talked about this

on, um, Reddit. Here’s the agreement right here: they would have set the title, they would have set what I could say about them, and if I had signed it, I wouldn't have been able to talk about them or their called Plutus for three years after our interview. It had to all be positive or neutral; like, I couldn't ask hard questions. So, of course, the interview was dead. I was about to report on it when the next day the update is that they go, "Okay, wait, wait, wait! No, actually, we are going to do the interview,

but now you have to do it on our terms. You have to come on our platform on X." They're going to do an X space. I thought this was stupid. I wanted to do a live stream on YouTube; they said no. Uh, we have to do it on X for some reason. I got up there—whatever, I'll just ask my questions. And so here's kind of how that went. Last thing before we start: I mentioned this example of their own PL rewards calculator. Um, I went to go check and make sure this is all right. I

put in a 50,000 PLUE stack just to be accurate. I say it's half a million—actually, they're promising 215,000 PL, um, after year five. I think I was calculating to year ten or something, so I just wanted to make that correction. When I say half a million, it's actually 200,000. Um, they’re still promising to 4X your money or 4X your PLUE stack in five years, but I wanted to be accurate about that before we get into this. CU—that's a thing we talk about a lot—doesn’t change the unsustainability of this, but I did want to be accurate

there. Okay, here it is: how do you plan to make this sustainable? This is my number one question. How is this not a Ponzi scheme given that you offer such outrageous returns? I love the energy and the kind of, you know, concern that you raised. Um, if you had followed me for a while or heard my previous AMAs, this is one of the issues we’ve been trying to fix for the last—I mean, since the D, which was announced in 2022, right at the end of that year. When we built the tokenized system back in 2015,

it was designed to be built for a very restrictive model, which was only up to 3%. However, as time went on, we faced competition. As a result of that, we adjusted our tokenomics and created these reward levels due to a lack of tangible, um, utilities and you having redemption access over time. We were aware that that was creating unsustainability. So, we were very open about this. I mean, it’s not been a secret, and I’ve been—you know, I've written a white paper recently to be able to fix this issue because our goal is to create a

timeless system. I’m aware—I’ve even said this before—um, you know, with one of our consultants, Sean, you know, the way the system has been working up to now, I mean, over the last years, is built on sand. You know, I’m not shying away from that, which is why we went through the whole vote, asked the community to support that, which 67% of people did, and we’re now building that system. I mean, we want to create a system which is timeless and what we have at the moment is not, but we want to do it in a

way where we can still offer up to 9 or 10% and make it timeless. How we do that? I mean, if you're in St. Tech, I think you'll be really pleased to know that we've created a very unique system because we have the, um, historical data where we know what the transactions have been on-chain. So, with the new tokenomics that are coming, we're building a system called Fuel, and Fuel collects transactions from wallet transfers only, um, between wallet A and wallet B on-chain, and transactions on DEX. So, from the data that we have historically, we

know that up to ten years 100% of the C—which is what you checked—is 100% self-sustainable, and up to 50% of the rewards are self-funded as well. And then, one more thing: with this, with the, uh, e-report recently, uh, they’ve given a value of $7.90 or £790 as a token emission value. Um, at that point, there will be no new tokens needed to be minted, so all the rewards that we ever issue, no matter how much it is—up to the 10% that we've created in the model—will be all 100% self-sustainable. Now, you can say, “Oh, that

is a lie,” but you know we have data, and we have regulated third parties providing that validation. So, great, great! I want to address two points. So you say your original system was... Built on sand; that's why that's a brave admission. And that's why you built the new white paper. But the new white paper is where you introduce some of the higher rewards. You didn't pull back; you said it's unsustainable, but rather than pull back and offer less, you actually offered more, which is part of what your rewards calculator says. It says, "Look how much

more you're going to get in our new system," which doesn't make sense if you're building for sustainability. Secondly, the Eny report is the most absurd thing I've seen. Finally, I got a full copy of it, so I took a look at it, and what I saw was that Eny made the absurd assumption that nobody would sell, swap, or otherwise use the token as it is meant to be used. So yes, is it sustainable if no one ever uses PL tokens? Yeah, any reward system could offer infinite rewards, and it would, in theory, be a sustainable

model because there's no actual economic use. So the problem is that when you actually ask people what they want to do with a cashback card or a rewards card, well, go figure, they want to use it for rewards. You cannot generate 10% return cashback returns and 10% CR based on what—a $20 a month subscription? It doesn't make sense; it's unsustainable, regardless of what a consultant with bad assumptions would say. No, I think you're going on the bandwagon here. So you said a few things; I forgot to take notes, but I think your rant is basically

based on misconceptions of what you're reading online. So, the 10% CI doesn't come from a subscription fee; it comes from something called fuel. When person A transfers fuel that they've earned from wallet A to wallet B on-chain, a tax of up to 5% is charged on that transaction. That transaction allows us to be able to issue rewards without being able to create new tokens. I mean, you can argue that in any way, but those are the facts that we've built. I know that doesn't mean it's guaranteed, but that's the financial model that we've created and

have gone through for months, validated by regulated third parties. Now that you mention it, I'm not getting this from online sources; I am reading directly from your sources. I am reading your papers; I am reading what you have released. I've seen the 5% tax, but that does not justify a CR where I'm going to get 5x of 10% on year five. Because what doesn't make sense is that I've earned half a million PL. How does that make sense? Okay, you can say that because you made an assumption, and you haven't gone through the financial model.

I mean, if you're willing to sign an NDA, I can give you access to—no, I've used your financial model. You have a rewards calculator on your page. Yeah, but that's not a financial model. That's a calculator that shows what way you can earn. A financial model is something different. If you've got any economics experience, you will know that a financial model highlights what a system will look like at scale over the course of 10, 20, 30 years, and so on, right? Which is what we've created, and it's very technical and in-depth. I would love to

show it to you. Daniel, you're hiding behind this. Use common sense with me for a second. No, no, you are hiding behind it. You're hiding behind consultants with bad assumptions, and you're hiding behind a model that I have to sign an NDA to see. Do you understand how that's kind of a little silly? Wait, look again; you're very presumptuous here. I think you approach this more as a troll than as a journalist. So I'm happy to answer your questions. If you want access to that, you don't have to sign an NDA to look at the

report, right? So, a financial model is something personal, which is not for public view. If you want access to that, if you're genuinely concerned, I would love to give you access to that right now. But I don't think you're genuinely concerned; it's more to sign. Wait, you don't know much about us or you never heard about PLers until a few days ago. But you're making all these kinds of assumptions based on the information that you know based on your data. I'm looking at your— All right, look, it seems like you're a very argumentative kind of

person. I'm not going to do that. Let me say clearly: the data is different from the calculator. It shows what you earn. But we've got data to back that as well, which we've clarified through regulated third parties and audited in our report. But if anyone wants deep access to it, for someone like you, I'm happy to do so, which you can verify. Then we can also have another AMA. I mean, for those who have known me, we don't hide behind tough questions; we welcome that. What is not fair is making presumptuous accusations and so on

without even having all the facts clear. So I'm happy that you actually joined so I can kind of give you all the insights. Maybe by the end of it, you can publicly apologize for the recent actions. What I don't understand is... I would publicly apologize for what you guys have done: not answering the basic questions I'm asking. Let me repeat it. I let you talk, so let me just get my point out. My point is, if I use your calculator and I'm just a guy using PL, let me just analogize this to rewards because your

closest similarity is like a credit card rewards program. Okay, if I look at a credit card, their business model makes sense. What is their business model? They give me about one to three percent cash back, and they generate that revenue from some real economic activity. What does that mean? They have transaction fees of about three percent, and then they charge interest on unpaid balances. They also have subscription fees. When we look at Plutus, it is a debit card; it doesn't have those high transaction fees, and it also doesn't charge high levels of interest on people's

remaining balances. The only thing you share is that you have a subscription model, but you claim to be offering over three times the rewards of these credit cards. So when I'm looking at credit cards, I understand their financial model. I understand how they make money. I understand how the transactions can generate the kind of cash back they're doing. When I look at your model, which offers ten percent in rewards back, I'm looking at this and asking, "Where is the real economic activity that is being generated to not make this a Ponzi scheme, to allow people

to withdraw properly?" It doesn't make sense. You're saying, "Oh, you got to look at this financial model." No, no, just explain it. I can explain a credit card model in five seconds; explain your model of how you make money back for this that doesn't include just selling the same tokens you're giving to people. I love the passion, and it's a great question. What you bring with credit cards is different. It's a credit card; they earn their revenue based on the interest they charge, and they recycle that back as a commission or cash back. Our system

isn't cash back. If you really understood it and compared it to credit cards and all the cash back, you would realize it is a unique and groundbreaking system that we've built. Why? Let me explain. First, it doesn't cost us anything to issue rewards. We create these tokens through ERC20 or whatever network we decide to go on to next. So we create these tokens in order to issue rewards to customers. Now, we have to provide them with tangible use cases for them to use those tokens within the app. In the past, we handled all the transaction

fees, and it cost us up to five million, to be honest. It wasn't very sustainable because in the past, when we offered these high rates, we ended up in a situation where it cost us a lot of money. We learned from that mistake and decided to build this the right way. This is why there's been no DEX for over a year. We wanted to release that a lot earlier, but we decided no, it's not the right time. We have to do things right, so let it be slow. People will get upset, but let's build the

right thing. The way we make money is first, we earn revenue from subscriptions. Although there's a lot of discontent on social media, the numbers haven't changed—we have had no churn. That goes to show that nobody wants to leave the platform because it is amazing, lucrative, and one of a kind. We also have Visa transaction fees, which is another way of earning money, and when it comes to perks, most of the utilities we offer don’t really cost us; they earn us revenue because they allow transactions to happen, and we have a margin on every stop with

the provider. For example, air miles or gift card providers. Can you explain how you make money from perks? I'd love to hear about that—not the perks, I mean the utilities. Some of the perks we do make money from. For example, Curve is one of our partners, so we have a revenue-sharing deal with them that spans multiple years and goes up to six or seven figures, depending on volume. We have partnerships like that which earn us revenue, so we don't depend on the token. The token has never been our business; otherwise, we would have had a

lot of tokens, and we wouldn’t be in a situation where, for example, you know very well that most of the people who are doing anything wrong within this industry go up really fast. We've been here for the last ten years. As founders, personally, my co-founder and I are broke. Why? Because the idea is to build something unique and be remembered in legacy—to do the right things. This is why I was kind of reluctant in the end to come on your YouTube channel. The team was concerned that you know nobody wants to be put in the

same basket as Logan Paul and Andrew Tate. You know that's not good for reputations, which is why I wanted to kind of speak to you first to understand your approach because I do want to have a constructive chat and answer all the tough questions. But I also don't want to put myself or the company in a situation where the damages can't be fixed, so I hope you understand that. Um, anyway, I'm sure you have more questions. Yeah, I do. So, you said the tokens don't cost money, but ultimately, if you're promising people some kind of

economic value—because there is ultimately a promise at the end of the day—if people thought these tokens weren't worth anything, number one, they wouldn't be in the program, and number two, you couldn't even calculate a rewards back. You're calculating based on price, so at the end of the day, they actually do cost money. You can kind of say, "Oh, we're minting tokens," but ultimately, there has to be a value to these things. You're, in fact, promising value with these things, with miles, different gift cards, stuff like that. So my question remains unanswered. You said, "Okay, I

have subscriptions." Great, that's not going to cover it. You say, "I have some Visa card fees." That's fine, but it doesn't cover it. You yourself said you guys are in the hole and the old system wasn't working. But if you look at your new system, like I said, it's not actually less promising—it's not a more sustainable system at all; it's actually promising more, which puts you even more in a hole. This brings us to the increased withdrawal limits and questions around that. I think the question is, if you guys weren't in deep trouble—which I suspect

you are—why are you limiting withdrawals so heavily? You can talk about abuse; you can talk about this; you can talk about that. But the reality is, what do people want to do with a cash back card or a rewards card? They want to use it for rewards. That's it! And if that kind of behavior is going to be labeled as abusive, that's obviously a big problem. So I still haven't seen where the revenue is coming from. You've said a few things that maybe could get me one or two percent cash back. But as you know,

that doesn't equal this outrageous 10% that you're promising. So I once again have to ask: look, you're limiting withdrawal. If you guys weren't limiting withdrawals, if you guys weren't doing stuff like that, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The reality is, anytime someone promises economic value and then limits withdrawals, that's where you hear me get brought up. It's a tale as old as time. Okay, well, you're a very passionate man. I respect that, and I appreciate this because, without you getting involved and highlighting all the concerns that have usually been raised by personal types who

don't read through our content, which is fine, I am happy to answer that. So, limiting withdrawals—we haven't really limited anybody's withdrawal as such. The whole system is still operating as we've always done. If you request a withdrawal at the moment, I mean a payout request of the blue rewards that you've earned, it's within 24 hours at this point. Right? If you look at the blockchain data, there are pay hours going through daily, which I've sent to you in the PDF that I shared with you. So, the only limitation is on a very small number of

users—around 800 or so users—who are the real cause of the issue. They're the ones who are being restricted; it's not everyone. I mean, we'll open the floor now to our customers. I'm sure many will vouch for this. You know, the idea is not to penalize or to avoid any signs of being in trouble. I think that's just very presumptuous. Otherwise, we wouldn't be here for ten years, going through three bear markets, and still being self-funded and still creating futures. I mean, the kind of achievements that we've had in comparison to companies who’ve raised ten times

more, you know, I think it's all also evident. So, the part about limiting withdrawals is untrue. That's still happening. When you say, "How do we provide the value?" The value comes from the amount. Even in the 2015 white paper, it said there's an emission value that comes from whatever the people demand the value of the token to be. Right? So, that's the intrinsic value of the token. The intrinsic value of the token is very different from extrinsic value, which is controlled by narrative and demand. And as you see, even though PL itself is one of

the very unique tokens with a day-to-day use case, it is being affected by narrative. So that, you know, controls the extrinsic value. So for me, you know, you can claim anything, but we know how the system is built: A) It doesn't cost us to create the tokens; B) We earn revenue from issuing rewards through our utility redemptions. Right? So this is not a bold claim, but you cannot understand that and try to accuse me of whatever you want for views. But, you know, it would be worth for you to— No, I'm not trying to accuse

you for views. I'm genuinely not understanding how you're earning revenue from redeeming the utility of people's cash back rewards. It's like an airline rewards card. Saying, "We earn money when we pay out rewards," is a great question. I cool, I got it. So, for example, with air miles, we get them for a certain value, and then we offer them to customers for a certain redemption value. The plus that we will get from that, we would give to a liquidity provider with a very low premium because it doesn't cost us anything for the service. Whatever is

left from that is revenue that we've made as part. It goes into our treasury, and that, you know, let's use the tangible value because we're kind of abstract right now. So, let's say I have one PL token. How much is that worth for an airline redemption? I think you said ten pounds, right? Um, one PL is a pound's worth of value. Yes? So, okay, great. Let's use that example. One PL equals ten pounds currently. I can buy — and we'll just stick with this very concrete example — and if you can answer it, I will

be very impressed. One PL token equals ten pounds of redemption, but I can buy it on the open market for like 130 or 180 right now. So, let's say I buy 50,000 PL tokens — let's say a total of 100,000. As I said, according to your rewards calculator, in five years that would be now 588,000 PL. That's according to your website; I'm using all of your numbers, so I have turned. So, now let's see how much it would cost for you guys to cash that out. So, how much do you redeem airline rewards for? So,

you're saying it's worth one pound, but how much does it cost you? Well, I'm very happy that you put your credibility on the line and brought this up. I mean, on this goose chase. But let me explain. No, no, give me a value, though. Give me a — let's just complete the analogy real quick because it's important. What, how much does it cost you guys? Because it's probably not ten pounds, right? No, it's lower, but I would explain once you've done with your question. Well, I need — okay, I'm just going to assume — let's

just assume for a second that it costs you a fifth of the amount, which I think is too low, but that's fine. So, from inputting 100,000 pounds into the system, I have earned one million dollars in reward tokens. That has cost you a million dollars in order to redeem that. That doesn't make sense. It does not pass the sniff test. Does that make sense to you? Does that make sense where I'm coming from? It’s a very simple example. It makes sense, and I appreciate your concern, but let me explain — after which is the part

that you missed early on. As I said, the way it's going to be built — first of all, you cannot use tokens that you've got externally. You cannot go to, for example, a third-party exchange or whatever, buy a bunch of clue, and come and redeem it on the platform, especially with their utilities, because it was only designed for rewards earned within the app. And even the rewards that you earn within the app, let's say you’re on a 10% level and you earn 10,000 over the course of a year or two years. Even then, there will

be limitations only in terms of deification. For example, you cannot just go and convert and get 10,000 pounds worth of gift vouchers in one go; we won't allow that. So, there will be a progressive fee structure in place to ensure the whole system remains sustainable while also being fair to customers to be able to redeem for normal use. Right? So, normal use will be cost-effective, but if you’re trying to game the system — like what you're trying to insinuate — you won't be able to do that because it will be just too costly for you

to do that. And if you did do that, we benefit from that. So, wait, wait, hold on. I'm a little confused as to how you're benefiting from it, and I'm also confused as to how somebody buying tokens, staking them for five years, and then wanting their money out of the system is gamifying the system. I mean, I would assume that the rewards are meant to be used at the end of the day, right? So why would you offer rewards that would produce, in five years, a quote gamified thing? How is that gamified? I don't know

what you're saying because what you just mentioned has nothing to do with how we work. I mean, first of all, we don't offer staking. Staking is something very centralized; we are non-custodial. So, you — me — if you do, if — no, no, stacking is what you guys call it. I mean, I misspoke. Staking, okay? Yes, sorry. Sorry to interrupt. Guys, can you please let each other talk, not fall into each other's words? That would be really appreciated. And, see, the way I appreciate you is that a little bit more calm, a calm conversational talk

would be really appreciated. Thank you very much. Okay, well, I came here to speak passionately, the way I think a lot of people have been wanting someone to talk to. Daniel, not the way that, you know, an ambassador or a moderator wants to speak, right? I'm asking hard questions. Daniel knew that I was going to be asking hard questions; I think this is what he was expecting. Go ahead, Daniel. I welcome that, and to be honest, I mean, you're the right person to have this conversation with because, you know, I don't think anyone's ever volunteered

to come and speak to you like the way I have. There's a reason for that: when you haven't done anything wrong and you're trying to do the right things, there are no questions you need to be worried about, right? My concern was only that we presented it in a fair way, and this is why I wanted to kind of hold this over. But, man, carry on please. Um, what was your last question again? Ah, so my question again, Ju—just to finish the example, by the way, the calculation I was assuming, with like, it cost you

guys a million dollars, that does not include the initial PL. Your whole point is well taken about, "okay, we're not going to let you use your initial," that doesn't matter; that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about just rewards: in five years, me putting $100,000 into your system is going to give me a million dollars with zero spending on my part. That is with y'all's cost. If we actually calculate the actual value of the airlines, putting in $100,000 would actually give me $5 million of airline reward cards in five years. That does not pass

the sniff test—that's what I'm telling you guys. And that is not some gamified thing; that's not some crazy scenario. Those are the rewards that you guys have on your white paper with your calculator; it doesn't make sense. Okay, look, you're not wrong with your concern because I understand where you're coming from. I've been talking against all the APYs offered by Tether, Binance, BlockFi, all that kind of stuff for many years. Since 2018, my first kind of post raised about Tether, which is how I heard about you the first time—in your 2021 post about Tether. How

they offer their CAPY is always built on free money minted by Paolo and sent over to exchanges or BlockFi or whoever the partners were. I mean, that's not a conspiracy anymore; it's now public knowledge. We understand that APY—the whole system feature—is very lucrative, but it has to be done in the right way. This is why we worked through the white paper and built a system called Fuel. Now, I know it's very hard to kind of fathom that, oh, these numbers are very high, will there be enough volume—but yes! I mean, the online on-chain transactions over

the last two years were over 350 million; 5% of that is substantial enough rewards to sustain what we currently emit for a year or two years. Now, I'm not making that up; I'm only saying this out of confidence because of the data that we've built. Again, I can only say that I can give you access to kind of make you—if you really are genuinely concerned, I can really guide you through it, and I mean, we can even do this publicly. I mean, I can go through the compliance, but you know, yeah, I'm with you on

this concern. I understand where you're coming from; what you’re trying to indicate is exactly what we try not to create and build. If, in a situation where our predictions were kind of too high and we could not collect enough Fuel to sustain that amount of emissions, we will adjust. But we will adjust! We've always adjusted with up to nosis—three months, six months, or a year up front. I mean, we went through a—I mean, we are for-profit; we don't have—but we act more like a DAO. We just recently went through a whole voicing and an AMPAL

community age. We don't have to do that, but we did because we want to continue building a relationship with our customers. But it doesn’t mean, you know, the reason we even here at this point—because what you don't understand, it's multiple past concessions that we've made, which is why, you know, it’s created that entitled mentality, which is now what we're trying to fix. I mean, look, I have a responsibility to protect our customers who've been with us for a long time and who've kind of suffered from what's happened over the last year, and my team's hard

work—I mean, most of the team members we have today have been with us for five or six years. There's a reason for that, you know? So I'm actually very glad that you've kind of, you know, given us exposure because, you know, we don't have that kind of marketing budget; we're not on the same kind of—we don't go to influencers and pay thousands of dollars to get promoted, right? So if we ever had influencers work with us in the past, it was more to do with because they were part of our customer base as well. Okay,

I really, really quickly want to address—I can't help myself—at the end there, you said you guys don't pay influencers. I talked to a former employee who said he was on the team that was paying influencers, so I don't know about that. But I do—I really quickly want to address something, which is the Fuel thing, real quick, and then I'll let you respond. So you said, "Okay, oh, this is self-funded through..." Fuel! I know it's kind of crazy, apy, but it's all self-funded through fuel, using historical data with this 5% tax. My problem with that is

y'all have implemented new features that are going to make on-chain transactions a lot less likely. What I mean by that is you guys are severely limiting or penalizing people who withdraw to different—uh, to external wallets to sell. So, in previous times, the reason you saw high historical data for why people were moving on-chain transactions is number one, there wasn't a tax, and number two, they could do that to then sell their tokens. Now that you've limited that, relying on the same historical data doesn't make any sense because you've actually said, "Okay, no no no, don't

do that anymore, guys! Use our internal swap," which isn't going to create any fuel, right? You're going to have fees and stuff like that, but it's not actually going to create this fuel you're talking about. So, that actually doesn't make sense because if you had used the same assumptions and you hadn't changed anything, sure, I could get on board—like, you could apply some 5% tax based on some historic things. But number one, the tax itself will change user behavior, and number two, you have changed the rules to change user behavior. So, again, back to my

question: the 10% CR does not make sense; it's not sustainable. The ENY report makes the assumption that people can't swap or sell—that doesn't make sense. Look, if you guys seriously think that this is sustainable, see me as the bearer of bad news; it's not. You're headed for trouble, and you need to slash these rewards if you're going to get to anything close to sustainable. I mean, it doesn't make sense. Credit cards only offer 1% to 3%. How could it possibly be true that you guys, charging way less money, are able to give people 10%? I

mean, that's the amazing part of what we've created, right? So, as I said earlier, once we kind of get to understand, let me explain. Once you become a part of our customer base one day—which, when we do, come to us and you will—you will get to understand why it is unique the way we built it. As I've said earlier, up to now, we've had issues, and I have been the one highlighting that more than anyone else because I care about the system and I want a timeless system built. So, the first thing you mentioned, let

me go point by point: influences. As I said, the only few influences you would find are the ones that are part of our customer base and have reached out to us in order to work with us. We've kind of included them in our ambassador program, and that's how we've operated. We haven't gone mass-market to ambassadors or influencers in the past. We don't; it's not part of our, you know, how we operate. If it comes to a point where all the external volume is lower, I mean, that's a good thing because if external volume is lower,

it means more engagement is in-app. If external volume is lower, we don't want customers to take the coins out, out of rewards from the system and go to a third-party platform. We'd rather have them shop for card top-ups within the app, which is what we have built currently for web 2 customers, and the next version will be DEX. So, the DEX that we're building in 2025, if you read the white paper, you will know that it's designed for our web 3 users, which most of the customers you're highlighting are the advanced users who want low

fees and they want easy access to swap their rewards into tangible value. They will be allowed to do that within the app, and so they don’t really lose anything by not leaving the platform. We created the reward system so we can decide what your rewards can be used for, right? So again, it's not a cashback system; it's not cash. It's a tokenized loyalty reward system similar to FIFA Coin, or MX Aires, or any of the other reward systems, right? So this is what we have to differentiate. We want to ask users to use the system

for how it's meant to be used and how it has been promoted. So, you know, cash is what it's not. So the perception that people say, "Oh, I've earned that and it's mine; I have to go and do whatever the hell I want with it," you know that's not true. I mean, we've created the system to be designed to be used within the app, and we've been building that over the past year. We haven't had that, and I agree with it. I mean, it's something that I've acknowledged many times, and we did make a promise

for it to be released much earlier, but it was delayed. I mean, we are a small, funded startup; things change, and we didn't hide behind that. I came on publicly and said, "Look, we have to do a transition and we can't release the DEX," but you know it doesn't mean that we will never do it because we are making progress, right? So it's good times ahead. So, I just want to address one thing you said: "Okay, we're not a cashback card; we're a tokenized loyalty reward program," but at the end of the day, you have...

To agree that your token has to be, at some point, pinned to a purchase value, because in order for you to give the equivalent of a rewards cash back, but in your native token, you have to be relying on some external value. So, if people pay in pounds, you have to convert that; you have to basically pin a price to PL that would generate the number of tokens you're talking about. When we talk about how it's not cash back, it kind of is connected to cash back, actually, and that is substantially what you're promising. So,

I just want to make sure that that switch is clear. Look, Stephan, you're not wrong. I mean, there's a thing with technicalities there, right? There's a value to the token; the value is determined by the external value of what customers deem the value of the token to be, which is what the emission value is based on. This is how we base whatever the values are externally, or what the value is, is what people consider to be the ratio — how we emit the tokens to customers. But it doesn't change anything. Well, it does mean that

you're ultimately giving people dollars, and that has to be a sustainable thing, because ultimately what you're promising is not some valueless token; it's some token pegged to some economic thing. So, you have to be generating revenue to make that sustainable. Even when you were talking about how it doesn't matter if we have less external transactions, well, actually, yes, it does, because it would mean you'd have less 5% taxes, which would make your CR less sustainable. But it also means that these card top-ups you're talking about are giving people real pound value, right? That is actually

what you're promising: real economic value. At some point in the chain, you have to generate at least that much to make it sustainable. My concern is that I see this company heading for the iceberg with these rewards, and I see a lot of customers that are just disgruntled. I'm coming to you and just asking basic questions about where's the money coming from, how is this working. At least to me, these are not satisfying answers that I'm getting, because ultimately there's no clear explanation as to where the generative value is that would make your system sustainable

for all the people who are withdrawing value from your system. Again, I mean, I love the passion and the fact that you’ve been really concerned about this, but I would like to highlight that we don't do it from our own pocket. When we provide the swaps, we provide that for a third-party liquidity provider whom we work with, so we have to go through certain steps. We don't actually end up having to lose anything on that front, right? Because why do the liquidity providers ask for that or why do they have a demand for that token?

Because there's a lot of PE already out there in circulation, and because we've created a day-to-day token that can actually be used on a day-to-day service, unlike anything else out there — even Bitcoin, which has no utility. So please, this is one of the only tokens out there that does have a utility, not only with in-app features but also with tangible benefits. Because of that demand, they're willing to provide us that service, for which we have to pay a premium, and we pass that on to customers. In the past, we took that on, which was

not sustainable; you're right, which is why we turned that — you know, closed down DEX, because it cost us and everyone knows this. So we wanted to build a system where it doesn't cost us, which is what we have now, and hence why the fees are so huge — 250%. It won't be the case if there was such huge volatility if there was no volatility at the moment, right? Because the third-party providers who give us a service, their premium would be much lower, and the same thing goes for utilities. For example, Aires: there's no cost

to us in terms of how much we get it for and what we sell it for. Everything that we've created in terms of utility, we will always have a profit margin on each swap. Maybe we break even on the first initial swap just to make it fair for the customer and make it usable, but we won't build anything in a way where we end up losing. Why? Because our goal is not to be self-funded forever; we are going into VC rounds, and we are speaking to tier-one venture capitalists to achieve that. To be able to

achieve that, we need to have a sustainable system built, which is why we went through the whole EY modeling and everything, because it's not just for customers; it has a much bigger objective. And the EY concern? I mean, you're not wrong with their assumptions, right? This is something they even highlighted in their own report, and I've said that in our previous AMAs and in the FAQs. They made conservative assumptions because they wanted to simplify the model, and they have said we will continue working with... them, and there will be a second version of the model,

and a third version will be released in due course. I can promise that because we are continuing to work. I mean, the IDE that wasn't the initial first version, and we know that there will still be improvements that need to be made, and they've said that in the report. You've read it right, so the improvement carries on; nothing's changed. Well, okay, there are a couple of things there. I just really quickly want to highlight for those who don't know, the EY report is an Ernst & Young report, which says, "Oh, this token's sustainable," but we

made the assumption that no one's going to swap it, send it, or otherwise sell it. So any model would be sustainable if you assume that nobody actually uses the tokens for what they're intended for. But I really quickly want to highlight; I'm worried we're going into like magic internet money thinking, where we can imagine a world where you're giving people airline miles, which everyone agrees has a value, and that's not costing you money. That's not costing the customer money. So where's the money coming from? This is an economically valuable thing that you're telling me isn't

costing you money; it's definitely not costing the customer money. So I'm not seeing where in the chain this is coming from. I just explained to you how 50,000 PL now gives me 5 million Airline dollars in airline miles in five years. You're telling me that's not going to cost you a dollar? How is that possible? Great question. We, as I said, all the PL redemptions that we get, we would have a liquidity provider who we have an agreement with, who would provide all the redemptions that we've earned to that provider in order to give us

the revenue—the liquidity that we need in order to kind of keep paying for the services and ensure that the customers get their utility. I mean, I think this is pretty genius. But who is paying the bill at the end of the day? Who's footing the bill? The customer’s not; you're saying you're not. So who's paying for my $5 million in airlines? Wait, wait! We pay the bill for the service fee. There’s a basic admin fee, of course, we have to cover that. But it doesn't cost the redemptions in itself; it doesn't affect sustainability because when

somebody redeems plut tokens on the app, we would receive that PL, and we would give it to a liquidity provider for a fixed, agreeable amount that we have, and then we would use that to pay for our services. There’s always a margin of profit in that because when we buy everything in bulk, for example, when we have a contract with Miles and More, you know we are one of the brand partners. So if the redemption value for, let's say, one air mile is, you know, $1, we would get that for almost less than 50% of

the value of the redemption. So we have enough margin to kind of play around with what we want to do with it. The same thing goes for the gift cards. I mean, you know, a £10 Amazon gift card, for example, costs us around £6. You're getting $10! It's not really—wait, wait! You're getting $10 Amazon gift cards for $6, but it's still costing you $6. So where does that economic value come from? You just told me you sell the tokens! I know! I understand where you're going with this. Again, as I said, you cannot just go

onto an exchange, whatever, buy tens of thousands worth of blue tokens, come to the platform, and redeem it for that because, of course, that's not sustainable, right? That's not how we're going to build it. So it's for regular use. So if you're on the platform, if the token value externally, what we get for it is lower than what the redemption value is, for example, if the token value is $2 and the redemption costs us $6 for that, you know, we will—there will be a fee structure there to prevent gamification and make sure that we never

end up losing, you know? So even with the fee structure, we’ll make sure that everything's fair for the customer and it's worth their while to be able to use the service. And maybe in the early stages in V1 it won't be as cost-effective, but you know we’ve had a lot of issues we’re fixing it right. So we're still here. So the idea is to continue improving. It might not happen overnight, but those who have been here for many years can see that, you know, we are resilient. You know we accept our mistakes, and we keep

improving, which is why I kind of appreciate that you wanted to come on and, you know, give us more exposure. So, I think I got to an important point here, which is that the way you're actually paying for these things is by selling the tokens that you are given. You are selling the tokens for economic value. Then it comes and begs the question: as you pay out more of these rewards, more things are getting sold; you need to then sell those tokens for that economic value. The price is going to crash, and the price is

going to continue to crash because if you're relying on the token itself for generating all this stuff, it's not going to work… To sustain it, yeah, but that's the thing. Like, you have, um, um, like, see, similar in a way where we sent you CLA, right? So we act – we are very cautious with how we do things. So even with the partners, we know that, you know, there are certain terms in order to protect how they would engage within the ecosystem, right? So it kind of benefits everyone. We have those kinds of security measures

in place. I don't know if – I mean, I don't want to say something that would get my compliance team annoyed, but to be transparent, there are certain clauses in there to kind of make sure that what you're insinuating doesn't happen; that the price doesn't fall. Well, like, what do you mean? Oh, oh, that people don't withdraw a lot of PL tokens? See, for us, it's better to engage if we have to kind of get a value – liquidity for PL that we've earned through redemptions. If we have to get real value for that, it's

better for us to work with third-party liquidity providers with whom we have clauses that state they cannot hurt the ecosystem or behave in a way that creates speculative or kind of volatility that impacts everyone. So we have those clauses in place. Whoever we work with, it is done in a way that protects everyone. I mean, are you saying they're not selling on actual exchanges? It's like an OTC deal? Yeah, yeah. Okay, so they're just – but then if you do that, they're going to charge you a huge fee in order to cover their risk side.

Well, that's exactly why the PL offers are so high, and we're trying to fix that, right? So, I mean, I'm the one who keeps getting blamed for it, but it's like I'm the one who's actually trying to fix that. Because once we get everyone to kind of follow the terms and understand what we built and appreciate it, this whole fee system will change. You know, the fees will be as low as 1 or 2%, which is the goal because we want this to scale. We haven't built this to kind of stop users from using it.

I mean, the reason the web two version of Pluto stopped is for the mouses. It's not for you and me who understand web 3; it's for our parents and grandmothers who are just getting used to emojis. That's why we've made it so easy. But with the 50% fees, we can't get to our goal, and I know that more than anyone else. To get those fees lowered, we need to create a better trend within the app and have everyone align with the same goals. I mean, the kind of customers that you've got your attention on, highlighting

this – you know, my message to them is, we're not going to get anywhere if we continue to behave in such a way. We haven't really done anything wrong here; we want to continue providing this service. All we ask is to try the new features that we've created, right? So, try it. If you don't like it, you don't have to stay with us. The service is optional, but it doesn't justify organizing mobs to go and leave negative reviews, all that kind of stuff. I mean, there's a lot of people's hard work involved there. I mean,

just for, you know, a few dollars' worth of perks or a payout, I think it's kind of morally very wrong to go with the aggression that some of the people have. However, that doesn't matter; we still want to retain them, and I hope we can change everything. Yeah, I mean, I would say arguing with customers who are trying to use your service as described is never going to be a winning strategy. Anytime a CEO finds themselves at the tail end of a bunch of negative feedback from their customers, kicking back against those customers is sort

of the worst idea. The reality is, if you find customer behavior based on your system objectionable, rather than penalizing those users or getting frustrated with them, you should change the system so that that kind of behavior is no longer possible. So, for example, if you're offering 10% returns and then I give you a for instance of using your exact terms, your exact calculator, and you tell me, "Oh, that would be abusive; that shouldn't be possible." That doesn't even make sense. You should not be able to engage with your app in a way that you see

as objectionable, right? And of course, I caveat like money launderers or something like that. I'm just saying, I just gave you a for instance of someone buying tokens, stacking their PLue or whatever, and getting $5 million in rewards, and you're telling me, "Oh, we would find a way to prevent you from doing that or tack on a bunch of fees or whatever." Just lower the redemptions; just lower the rewards. It doesn't make sense offering 10%. It exists nowhere else in the industry. There's no one else who sustainably offers these kinds of rewards, and that is

for a reason. You haven't reinvented money; you haven't changed the whole system. You need to get in line with what is actually possible and then just see who will stick around. Maybe at that point you can ease up on withdrawals. You'll find less people are what you term as... Abusive! Because these are rewards that are realistic, and you can actually pay out, instead of a fairy-tale land where we have 10% CR and 10% rewards. It doesn't make sense; it doesn't pass the sniff test, I'm sorry to tell you. Yeah, well, thank you for your opinion.

However, let me explain something: 10% C is not for everyone. In the past, what happened is that pretty much anyone could come on the platform and get to 7, 8, or 9%; it was very easy and very lucrative. As a result of that, we created a free candy problem, which was very hard to get out of, and this is why we are here. I think I've shared that in the PDF with you, with resources that kind of explain that. But, you know, again, that's one of those things because I know you haven't had a chance

to go through everything, and you're just reading off stuff and thinking, "Oh [__], you know, I've seen that with BlockFi and all these other Celsius and whatnot." It's not sustainable, and I agree. If you knew me very well, from how some of our other customers know, it's exactly what I've been talking about for many years. The aim is to build something unique and lucrative while being completely self-sustainable. If we don't have the model completely perfect yet, I agree; even EY has said that in their report, we've said that in our FAQs. But we are going

to continue improving, and those who know about us know that we are very community-focused, and we will continue doing that because, you know, people get called out, and I love facing the community in that way. I love the passion for, again, the concern you're raising, but if you are genuinely concerned, then let's try to go through all the bits together and understand how the product works. Well, I've seen your EY report, I've used your company's own calculator, and I've looked at your white paper extensively. What I'm telling you is what anyone would tell you, which

is that if you want sustainable and lucrative, you're going to have a bad time. You have to pick one; you have to pick a system that generates enough actual economic value to pay out the returns. Right now, I'm sorry to tell you, I know you don't want to hear it, but you guys are offering way too much money. The system doesn't make sense, and you're headed towards a crash with or without me. You may think it's the fault of your haters and your customers and everybody else that's doing this to you. No, it is your

system, which is not sustainable, and if you continue down this route, it's going to collapse. It's not going to be my fault; it's not going to be your customers' fault. You guys are going to fail, and I'm going to be the one to tell you that right now. You're absolutely not wrong, and I've kind of been saying that for over the last year while working on the white paper, while making all the updates. The system currently, as it has been running for the last one or two years, is not ideal because we did try to

compete with, you know, with the likes of CDC and so on. Even though their system was built on the ability to print whatever they like and issue it to customers, we tried to compete with our 2015 economics, which was only limited up to 3%. As a result, I acknowledge that that was kind of a mistake because although it created huge demand in the beginning, it did get us to the point where it created unsustainability. I've acknowledged that, and this is why I've been working hard for the last year to fix that. Now, I'm not claiming

that the model is 100% perfect; I've never done so, but it does need to continue improving. One thing I do want to clarify is that we're not giving value here out of thin air. There's a system built that allows customers to earn something that we own and created, and we issue it to them as a reward, which they can redeem within the app for certain features. The redemption will have a fee included, so it ensures that we don't end up losing as a business, because in the past, we have. So now it's all about increasing

the revenue, which is what we need to get to our VC rounds. To be honest, this conversation really helps because anyone listening to this chat will understand that what we're trying to do here is build something really valuable. I mean, I'm refuting your concerns because they are valid. Otherwise, based on similar feedback, it's why we've created the white paper in the first place. Now, as I said, if you have doubts or suggest improvements and you're really concerned, then I'd be happy to include you in our working group and make suggestions, but I would appreciate it

if you could tone down the accusations, please. Well, I am trying to provide suggestions right here, right now, which is to lower your rewards. It doesn't make sense; you said you're going to make up some of it with... Fees, so let me ask you a new question. What you're saying on your app is: okay, let's say I have 50,000 PL stacked in the highest tier. I'm making 10% rewards, cash back or reward back, whatever you want to call it. So, let's say I spend $10,000; I get $1,000 worth of PL back, okay? Or pounds, how

much of that is going to go—like, after the tax, after all of that, how much actual value am I going to realize? 'Cause you're saying, like, "No, no, no, no, we're not actually giving that because we're going to have all these fees, all these things that makes this sustainable." So what I'm trying to ask you is, after everything is included, after everything's said and done, how much is my 10% rewards back actually back—in percentage-wise? Is it 5%? Is it 7%? Is it 3%? What is the actual reward back after the fees? I think you're muted.

Yeah, so I think what you mean is that once you've earned the rewards, when you go to redeem it, how, if you earn 10%, what it will cost? What will you end up having; still 10% or less? Well, I can't guarantee that, and we never have, because the system has been built in a way where it doesn't guarantee a fixed extrinsic value. But with the tangible utilities that we've created, for example, the air miles and gift cards, we do have a fixed intrinsic value. So, for example, one PL will be able to be converted for

£10 worth of gift cards, right? But there will be limits to it in the sense that there will be fees increasing as you kind of increase your volume. So we protect ourselves from being gamified. So, I mean, what is my $1,000 in rewards going to turn into when I finally cash it out? So I earned $1,000 of PL rewards; what is it actually going to be when I cash it out? Well, it depends on the utility you're using. For example, with air miles, when you earn those, you can sometimes use 10,000 air miles for a

business class flight, or sometimes the same value is worth something else on a different feature. It just depends. The same way we decide, all based on the economic principles, what works best for the system and everyone else. Each system will have its different values attached to it. But at the moment, if you see—let’s talk about a top-up. Let’s say I’m going to just add dollars or pounds to my account, because at the moment, if you've seen the white paper, the tangible value that we do have attached to that is you’ll be able to swap, for

example, one PL for up to £10 worth of air miles or gift cards, and up to £150 worth of discounts on air miles. So that’s the intrinsic value that we are trying to build. I think my question, maybe I'll try to reword it a certain way, which is this: What amount of air miles do I have to redeem before it's deemed as abusive by you guys, or gamifying? I mean, look, I don’t have the details exactly on that because the features and all the rules haven't been fully scoped out. How about a swap? Yeah, but

with the swap, there are no limits. You can swap; you can swap PL for cash tops as much as you like. There are no limits at the moment, but there is a fee included. It'll be the same kind of similar structure with miles and gift cards, because, as I said earlier, if you include a limit on how much you can swap, it loses its intrinsic value. That’s how it works. So for intrinsic value to be valid, it needs to have depth of conversion. We want to provide users with depth, so you can earn and swap

your PL into as many miles as you want. But the more miles you convert, the higher the fees will get, to make sure that you've done it fairly. But there are no limits on the swap, is what you're telling me? Yeah, of course not. Okay, well again—and you’re going to hate this because I'm going to go back to my old example, and maybe we’ll just close on this, which is this: If you take a very simple example where I buy $50,000 PL for $100,000, okay? I'm not going to use these in the rewards. According to

your calculator, by the end of it, I'm going to have half a million PL generated from your CR, right? So, I have half a million PL in rewards. I go to your swap, and I exchange that for the same—let's just assume, for the sake of argument, PL is at the same price at the end of five years, which it won’t be; but let’s just make that assumption— and you take 50%. I put in $100,000 into your system, and I'm getting out half a million. That is unsustainable; that does not make sense. Wait, wait! I mean,

look, at the moment, I don't understand what calculations you're looking at. So I’m looking at your calculator. You put—wait, we want an example. You’re just throwing out numbers, and it's like, but look, whatever. You can go on your website and see it. Okay, fine, but look, everything you've kind of... Raised has an answer to it, so whatever you're saying right now can be answered as well. But the mathematics that you're looking at—there's a reason for why that has been provided in that way, because it's based on a financial model. Now, again, there's no guarantee that

that value will always be sustained in that way. We haven't promised that; you know that's never been part of our [ __ ] promotion. And to hell with the fact that everyone's been kind of insinuating that is what kind of irritates us. Because, you know, there's a responsibility for us to protect everyone, especially the customers who have been supporting us. So when someone like, um, like yourself, who's making these, you know, assumptions—especially on an online forum like you have—the exposure, right? It's kind of harmful because you have to first remain factual. So what you're saying

is incorrect. Where do you think I have not been factual? Can you tell me? Well, you're trying to assume that you know earning a certain amount of PL that can, you know, trying to insinuate that that PL will continue to hold value, which is not what we've promised. You said no—I think it's going to collapse in value. To be clear, I'm trying to prove that to you. Yes, so we've said that that value is what the emission—this is the amount of PLU that you will earn as a result of stacking for example for one, two,

three, five years. But that PLU is not guaranteed to have a certain value. However, what we do guarantee, which I have done in the white paper, is that the PLU that you earn will be tangible in terms— for example, any PLU, any amount of PLU that you have within the app. Let's say you have 100,000 PLU, and then you want to swap that for utilities that we offer. In the initial stages, this, what we offer, will be very low. You, of course, cannot go and swap, you know, $100,000 worth of PLU that you've earned into

air miles, because we have to scale up slowly. But what we do have, we promise in the white paper, is tangible value for each one PLU, and that can only be proven once we've achieved that. So you can sit and argue and, you know, claim all the things that you want based on, like, you know, not understanding, etc. But, you know, it doesn't change the facts. Wait, wait, you're saying that I am giving wrong information. You haven't said what wrong information I’m using. I did that intentionally because I wanted to have you face your promises,

which is ultimately what I think is unsustainable. I don't think your promises are sustainable. So you're telling me, "Oh, well, who even promised that the value of PLU would stay the same?" Well, actually, just like you said, you are actually promising that there's some redeemable value of this PLU at the end of the day. So whether we want to use swaps—which I just kind of ran you through those numbers—or you want to use airline miles, where we talked about getting $5 million worth of airline miles at the end of five years—which doesn't make sense—you say

there's increasing fees, but you haven't given me what those fees are. So what I'm trying to say is you guys are headed for a nightmare; you're headed for trouble. I'm not your problem. Your problem is your white paper, your new tokenomics, and your plan. You're definitely not the problem. You’re— I mean, you’re just somebody who has kind of helped us get the exposure, and I'm very happy for the time you've taken to give us the interest that you have. But, um, I mean, again, everything that you've said now is very presumptuous. You're not saying anything

valid. The system that we've built—again, the calculator that you see—doesn't promise you any kind of redemption value; it shows you what from making an action, this is what you will earn as a result of it, right? So when you earn those rewards in the app, also, there are certain terms—for example, you cannot just earn and be speculative on a daily basis. It has certain stacking periods, like for example a 12-month clause built in. So what that does is create a system where everyone's aligned towards long-term value, earning long-term value instead of thinking, "Okay, I need

to go to the third party for payoffs." So that is what we’re trying to achieve. So when that happens, even if it's a small number of users who are doing that or a larger user base, either way, it benefits everyone. So, in terms of what the tangible value will be, we have promised that it will be £10 for one gift card versus one PLU. You cannot buy PLU from exchanges and come on the platform and abuse the system for gift cards. Of course, that won't be sustainable, and I agree with your concern. We know we

haven't offered that—only the PLU that you earn in-app. So, now if it comes to a point where you have 100,000 PLU, I mean, although we will not have limits, there will be fees that won't make it very profitable for you to be able to swap that. And if you did, we will earn from that, and you won't hurt the system. So either way, you know, we will win, or we will… Protect the ecosystem; however, it's not a guarantee. The value has never been a guarantee of what the extrinsic value will be. What I've always, as

I said, explained is how the system will work, what our intents are, and things can change. But the redemption value of what we've offered, what the goal is, will remain the same. Yeah, you say that you don't promise an extrinsic value, but you actually are promising an intrinsic value. So, at the end of the day, you are promising to redeem these tokens at a certain value. Absolutely, yes, 100%. That doesn't make sense? How does it not make sense? I mean, if you earn AAS, they offer you a value even though they do it based on

a different business model where they earn a profit from the percentage they earn, but they still offer that value to you within the app. We are offering it within the app; we don't guarantee outside external. This is why we encourage everyone to stay within the app. Users who haven't done so over the last year or so — I mean, we know the majority haven't done so — but we haven't penalized everyone because we can look at the data and observe customer behavior, right? So, is this normal use or by mistakes or so on? But we

can also see there's a small group of users who are, you know, it's the whole minification of mindset. You know, everyone's here for the quick win and move on. You know, not us—we're not going to allow that, and we reserve the right to do so. So, you know, people could go and ride as much as they want and try to go on the witch hunt, but hey man, like, we're not phased by that; otherwise, we wouldn't be here having this conversation. Yeah, nobody's trying to go on a witch hunt; we're just trying to get to

the bottom of what you guys are promising. You guys are promising too much, and then when people try to take you up on it, you know, it gets to be difficult and withdrawals are hard to get. You know, some people are labeled abusive and things like that. I mean, look, the reason your analogy about airline miles is not correct is that an airline mile is related to the actual value of the dollar. Right? Whereas what you guys are offering cash back on is based on the value of PL token, which fluctuates, and then you're guaranteeing

to redeem it at a certain value. This is a disaster. Let me tell you why. So, let's say the value of a PL on an exchange is a dollar, right? So that means that if I earn $10 worth of reward backs, you have to give me 10 PL. But then, I've only earned $10 worth of reward backs, so to speak. But then I can go back to you and say, "Okay, give me 100 pounds worth of airline miles for this $10 of PL, this 10 PL." That doesn't make sense; you're arbitraging against yourself. Well, I

think what you don't understand is there's something called the network effect, right? So if we have—if we are able to provide a real tangible value for service, a guarantee, which is what we're doing—if the extrinsic value becomes, like, you know, nobody will care about that anymore, and because that's always going to be linked to what we do as a product, as a service. For example, the reason we can buy air miles from our partners is because we know it has intrinsic value, and we need to redeem it for certain benefits. For example, to get merchandise,

it's up to 50 cents or slightly higher. To get a first-class ticket is, I think, about 18 cents or 20 cents or so, something around that kind of range. They have different variations of extrinsic value that they offer, but that's part of the whole system and promotion model that they built. So that's them taking that as a cost. For us, we don't have to take costs for providing certain services. For example, we don't have to build something unique like AAR or, you know, a different structure; we can just connect third-party services and provide customers with

commonly used services that people love and use, and which is what we've done. I know you're on this kind of mindset of investigative journalism, which I totally appreciate, and I think it's really good. You know, I think by the end of it, I believe that we'll come out stronger. But at the same time, we have to keep in consideration that we shouldn't make assumptions based on not knowing the facts fully. I know you said that you've gone through everything, but you know you've only known about us for 48 hours or so, so I believe that's

not enough time to understand everything that we have been doing over the last 10 years. I didn't say I understood everything you've been doing in the last 10 years. I'm saying I've looked over your tokenomics, I've looked over the EY report, I've looked over how these economics are supposed to be working. You know, I find it ironic you said you enjoyed my Tether report and you said you think Tether's up to something sketchy, which as we all know... Doing is trying to peg a digital currency to some actual asset, and there's questions of, well, do

they have the backing for that? Well, what you just told me is that when you do this token thing, the price is just going to be $10 because that's what you're redeeming it for. So you're basically saying, "Oh, we're going to make a stable coin out of airline reward cards." My question, and suspicion, would be the same for you, which is: how do you continue that when people go ask for redemptions? At some point, somebody's got to pay for all this stuff. So, yeah, you're right; I think I lost my point that I was trying

to make earlier. But once you create a system where you have tangible value—for example, you can get up to $10 worth of air miles or gift cards—the trend that people want to speculate externally changes over time. You know, that's what we're trying to achieve here, and it's not something that's new. I've been saying that in our last AMAs and so on. We are aware that there's no guarantees of it happening, but we have to make an effort in order to get there, right? So this is what we kind of... this is what our attempt is.

You know, of course things can change, but the idea is to make sure that we can, you know, once we provide that service, the network effect kind of changes the whole perspective where people go away from the whole mindset of, "Oh, let's earn this," and kind of get rid of it as soon as possible to go and trade on mCoins, to "Let's, you know, this is really worth it because it gives us all these kinds of features that we can use within the app," and it gives us more value when I kind of interact with

the system in-app. That's the goal. And again, there might be some flaws with the financial modeling, but even that's been highlighted by ourselves and our FQ and EY themselves, which I can promise you is currently being improved, and there will be a second or third version of our updates on what we're trying to achieve here. Well, there's no way you're going to be able to offer what you're currently offering: the 10% CR, the 10% rewards back, and a stable value for airline tokens are not going to work. So if this is your new plan for

sustainability, you're doomed. Well, look in my technical white paper. I've already said this: if, in the event that there's not enough fuel being generated, then those rewards won't be emitted. You know, we would not create new tokens in order to give those kinds of lucrative rewards, and that's how we want to build it. So anyone on those kinds of levels—and if we don't—because everything's on-chain, right? So we don't have to hide behind internal data, so people can see what kind of fuel collection there is. So that has been covered. If it comes to a point

where we are not collecting enough fuel, we won't be issuing those kinds of rewards, and everything will adjust automatically. So there's something called the difficulty adjustment—not the one that we did last year, but there's a different version of it, which I've kind of included in the white paper. So, I mean, if you need a reference to it, I can point you to it, but that has been covered. Wait, wait! We need to address this whole, like, "everything's on-chain." Everything is not on-chain; there's a bunch of PLUE in your internal system which is not actually on-chain.

You guys have it in internal ledgers, and then later, people can, in theory, withdraw it, but there have been some people who've been banned, and their internal account balances have never gotten to them, as well as the fact that internally that shows nowhere up on the blockchain. So when you say, "like everything's on-chain, it's all verifiable," actually, it's not, is it? Okay, great. I mean, you're connecting two different things. When I say "on-chain," I'm relating it to fuel, which is transactions made on-chain between different wallets, and the fuel that is collected as a result of

it. So that will always be on-chain. We can't have that internal because that's going to be built within the tokenomics and coded into the new token network that we migrate to next year, so that's going to be completely different. The PLUE, that is an internal balance—yes, I mean, that's no secret. We've been releasing data in relation to that over the last few years. Plus, every time we do a recon every three months, it has to be given access to all our data to a regulated third party called Hagers and Crter. They're the ones who have

to go through all the PL transactions, and they approve the amount of PLUE that we can take out from the rewards pool and issue to customers, and they do take the responsibility for it. So, it's not like we don't have a process where, like, CG or FBS or whatever, go and have access to whatever we want. We have certain procedures in place to be completely transparent and build trust. These are... I mean, recon blogs—you can see all the PDFs; everything is public. We've been doing this for several years now. It happens every three months. You

know, when we do these reconciliations, every single transaction is verified. So I think we're good on that. Yeah, yeah, I was just making the point that it's not actually on-chain. We can trust external auditors if you want, but I'm just making the simple point that not everything's on-chain. I mean, my bigger concern, obviously, is the sustainability of this; it's not sustainable. You haven't made the case for it being sustainable. I'm concerned for your users, and I'm concerned for everyone in the system. Let me ask you something: Let's say you guys go bust. What happens to

people's debit card balances? Do you guys have access to those funds? Do you guys touch those funds? Do you not have access? What's going on there? I mean, look, for us, we want to always build a platform in a way where we have less access to customer funds as possible, which is what we achieved. I used to run an exchange before I started, back in 2013 all the way up to 2015, called Lazy Coins. I ran there for two years and then exited because running an exchange is the most difficult thing in the world. Why?

Because you're always in there targeted by, you know, every single day you have to ensure security, and you have the responsibility of handling customer funds. So once I exited from Lazy Coins, the idea was to build something that you never have to control customer funds. You're just the one that provides all the cool features and earns revenue as a result of it. So we did that. I mean, the PL that you earn in-app is centralized, but we promote people to request payouts and stack in their personal connected wallets. I mean, that's been our USP since,

you know, a decade before even DeFi was a thing. You can verify that from my Reddit post from 2015. So now I'm concerned about fiat. I'm concerned about fiat. When people deposit fiat in our, let's say, account—Plutus account—it doesn't, we don't hold it. We have no control over that. That goes to our banking partners, who provide accounts that are regulated, and also the funds are stored in segregated, insured accounts at the Bank of England and similar institutions in Europe. And it's outside of any limitations of Plutus, which is completely ideal for us because we don't

want that responsibility. Right, so just to be clear: Should anything happen to you guys and your sustainable system, people's funds are separated—they would not be in any way impacted? Yes, absolutely. That's been built that way intentionally. I mean, if we had access to customer funds, we would also have stadium sponsorships, and you would have known about us many years ago. Okay, great. Those are my questions. Thank you. Okay, so that's the interview. I hope you enjoyed it. What is so crazy to me is they brought this all on themselves. If this guy hadn't accused Reddit

of defaming him, I never would have heard about these guys. And now I think they have very serious problems, and I don't think they're being adequately addressed. But I wanted to go over their responses to me just in the interest of transparency. I asked them, "Can you address accusations of censorious practices, including claims that Daniel sought out user emails to enforce bans?" This is from an ex-employee. They told me that, "Our Discord channel is accessible to all customers; however, we recently implemented a verification process for disruptive participants to verify if they are in fact Plutus

customers. Over 95% of users received a caution for violation of community guidelines." If 95% of your users are in violation of your community guidelines, it's a problem. While a handful identified as high-risk by compliance were either off-boarded or asked to provide a source of income, which some didn’t, so the accusation was they didn't like what people were saying on their Discord. They made those people hand over their emails because they couldn't identify who they were, and when they did, they said, "Oh, surprise! Compliance wants you to submit a source of funds," and then they would

get banned. So, here's my second question: "Can you speak to recent changes in withdrawal policies which users feel restrict cashing out rewards on the cash back card?" They say, "Plutus is defined as an in-app loyalty reward token. Our Legacy team specified its intended use is for in-app features." Okay, they haven't had many in-app features, and self-storage in self-custody wallets sort of again, like, it doesn't make sense. You're having a cash back card—a cash back reward program that punishes you if you take it? "To maintain the integrity of our platform, we conduct audits for card refund

fraud or using rewards to move rewards to third-party platforms to gamble on meme coins." And so this is their thing: They say if you're transacting, you're sending it to a third party, maybe you're just gambling on meme coins. How do you respond to claims that Plutus operates as a Ponzi scheme with unsustainable rewards and limited withdrawal options? A Ponzi scheme involves taking money from one user to pay another. Plutus in... Contrast provides a loyalty rewards program redeemable for real benefits or in-app features and generates revenue through partnerships with established providers like Visa, Curve, and Miles

& More. Additionally, we blah blah blah. Um, we launched a current crypto-to-fiat deck. Claims of a Ponzi scheme and similar labels come from disruptive users who exploit the system, frequently funneling rewards to fund personal gambling on exchanges. So, uh, if you say bad things about Plutus, they think you're frequently funneling rewards to personal gambling. Um, for a better understanding, see our guide on productive versus nonproductive use. Please explain how Plutus's 10% cash back and 10% CR rates are sustained, given that they far exceed typical credit card rewards. We talked about this a lot in the

AMA, but they bring up that, oh, we have validated reports by E&Y with features like fuel, all CR emissions are 100% self-sustainable. I've been over this, over and over, why I don't think that's true. Um, okay, for a deeper understanding, I strongly recommend reviewing the technical white paper and E&Y report. How much runway does Plutus have left till bankruptcy? Recent changes suggest a company in distress. Plutus developed multiple diversified revenue streams. Blah blah blah, are they going to answer the question? Um, no, they just say we've been bootstrapped for a decade. There are disruptive accounts,

okay? It's starting to repeat itself a little bit. Um, Plutus claims to be self-custody, yet PL rewards are stored in an internal ledger. How can users trust this PL won't be seized or exceed the total supply? Again, we covered this in the AMA; I'm not going to go over it too much here. Uh, they basically say, hey, look, we don't mind when people withdraw their money, but those withdrawals are subject to delays according to their users. Why did E&Y assume users can't withdraw, sell, swap their PLUE tokens, and instead stack indefinitely? That would seem to

obviously shoot their conclusion in the face. And they say E&Y made conservative assumptions for simplification, as noted in their report, similar to loyalty programs assuming all users will indefinitely defer rewards redemptions. Okay, I don't understand why that's a fair assumption; however, this does not impact the financial model for sustainability. Yes, it does, which is extrapolated from historical on-chain data and has been technically audited by a third party. We talked about that; we are still working with E&Y to improve certain aspects of the model further; it's been clarified in AMAs. Um, fill out this form to

have the report sent over. Trustpilot shows Plutus flags negative reviews 72% of the time and claims Plutus asks paid ambassadors to leave positive reviews. Can you address this? Okay, so for quick context, Trustpilot is a review platform, and they have a transparency page where you can see how many times a platform flagged a review as not real. They can do that, but then the user can go back and say, no, I am a real user. So, you have this rate of false flagging by the company, and usually, it's seen as abusive if that rate is

very high. So, obviously, in this case, the rate was 72%. That's extremely high. They say we solicit genuine reviews from ambassadors to share their lived experience. Okay, ambassadors, you know, that's another way of saying they're paid in some way, or they're compensated in some way, or in some way affiliated with the program, so that's strange. Additionally, we attached a zip file showing evidence of coordinated targeting of reviews, a matter currently addressed by our legal team in direct communication with Trustpilot. So, that's just where they show that there are disgruntled users behind the scenes in, like,

Telegram groups or something, just talking amongst themselves about Trustpilot. Please see attached screenshots for the ambassadors' channel regarding the Trustpilot and other reviews. Um, they say we appreciate all ambassadors who leave a genuine review on their respective app stores; please consider this a welcome but voluntary task. Um, and then last question, do you acknowledge the PSH ambassador role is purely voluntary? Okay, so that's the responses; I just wanted to include those for the sake of transparency, um, so that they can't claim that I'm taking them out of context or anything like that. Obviously, we've played

their interview in full. So, uh, yeah, that's basically it. I think this platform is headed for trouble. I don't think what they're doing is sustainable. I don't think they have any economic activity that equals the amounts they're promising out, and I think what's clear is that the founder, Daniel—um, or the CEO, excuse me—doesn't want to lower these rates because he knows, okay, this is why users are here for these higher rewards. But there doesn't seem to be an acknowledgment that, like, at some point, you have to pay for this stuff. Uh, they kept saying, like,

oh, we don't pay for this stuff or some version of it's magic money that doesn't have to be paid for. At the end of the day, I don't think they're generating enough revenue. I would stay away from this thing. Um, although if what they're saying about, like, we don't actually hold your money is true, that would be good. But again, the question is, how do we verify that? Do we actually believe that to be the case? I don't personally know. So, uh, that's it. That's my investigation into Plutus and my interview with their founder. Thanks

for watching.