That's a common perspective, but let's consider a few points regarding the broader crypto space.

Cryptocurrencies, almost universally, derive their value from supply and demand, network effects, and user belief, not from being backed by gold or any physical asset. Even Bitcoin, the king of crypto, ultimately holds value because people believe it does and agree on its worth within its network.

So, criticizing Pi *solely* because its distribution mechanism isn't traditional "mining" kind of overlooks the faith-based nature of nearly all digital assets. If Pi is questionable merely for not using resource-intensive mining like Bitcoin, couldn't one argue about the 'real' backing of *any* crypto that isn't tied to a tangible asset?

Regarding data collection: Virtually every major platform and social network we use collects data, often extensively, whether we are fully aware of it or not. Highlighting Pi for this specific practice seems a bit selective when it's a widespread digital reality.

The difference with Pi appears to be its strategy of attempting to build a large, engaged community *before* launching fully onto the open market. Whether this approach translates into tangible value is something each individual has to assess for themselves. Ultimately, deciding if it's an opportunity or not rests with each person's judgment and risk assessment.