Following the publication of our Original Blog and YouTube exposé on BitNest and Mellion Coin, we received a comment questioning whether we had properly reviewed BitNest’s smart contracts and its CertiK audit. It’s a fair question. And as always, we believe in full transparency.

In this follow-up blog, we’re diving deep into the technical side — unpacking exactly what the CertiK audit says, what it doesn’t say, and why BitNest’s core business model remains fundamentally fraudulent despite the presence of “audited” code.

What a Smart Contract Actually Means

First, let’s clear up a major misconception:

A smart contract is simply a computer program that says, “IF X happens, THEN Y automatically happens.” That’s it.

It doesn’t guarantee that the thing it’s doing is ethical, profitable, or sustainable. A smart contract can execute a perfectly coded Ponzi scheme just as easily as it can execute a legitimate DeFi protocol.

Key takeaway:

A smart contract proves automation, NOT legitimacy.

What the CertiK Audit of BitNest Found

PDFBitNest proudly displays a CertiK audit badge to appear credible. However, when you actually read the audit report from May 2024, it raises serious concerns:

  • Major Issue (BNC-01): Centralized Admin Control
    • BitNest’s admin wallet initially had sweeping control over crucial contract functions. While they claim to have renounced admin rights, users have no way to verify if hidden backdoors still exist.
  • Minor Issue (BNC-04): Third-Party Dependency Risk
    • BitNest heavily relies on external protocols (like PancakeSwap) as “trusted black boxes.” If any upstream service fails or changes, BitNest’s contracts could become dysfunctional overnight.
  • Minor Issue (BNC-05): Unlimited Token Approval
    • BitNest authorized maximum token approvals without limit. In a worst-case scenario, an attacker could drain entire wallets if a linked contract is compromised.
  • Informational Issue (BNC-03): Ignored Return Values
    • Certain smart contract functions do not properly handle returned outcomes from external calls, leaving open the possibility of silent failures or hidden bugs.

Important: CertiK itself explicitly states that:

“The audit does not guarantee the project’s business viability, investment safety, or legal compliance.”

Translation: CertiK checked if the code works — not whether BitNest is a good, legal, or sustainable investment.

BitNest’s Business Model — Still a Ponzi by Design

The real problem isn’t whether the smart contracts are bug-free. It’s what the contracts are built to do.

BitNest’s underlying model is still deeply flawed:

  • Guaranteed 0.4% Daily ROI
    • Offering fixed daily returns (~12.5% monthly compounded) is mathematically unsustainable without continuous new investment.
  • 17-Level Referral Commission System
    • Investors are incentivized to recruit others into the scheme, creating a classic multi-level marketing (MLM) Ponzi structure.
  • Forced Token Burning
    • Users must pay in Mellion Coin (MEC) to participate, and these tokens are burned to create artificial scarcity — not real value.
  • Vague Income Sources (e.g., Coin Mixing Profits)
    • BitNest claims “profits” from a coin mixing service will fund token buybacks, but provides no verifiable proof of external income streams.

Why the Smart Contract Audit Changes Nothing

You could have a perfectly audited smart contract that says:

  • “If User A recruits User B, pay User A a commission.”
  • “If enough new deposits come in, pay interest to older users.”

If that’s how the contract is designed, then it’s simply an automated Ponzi scheme, working exactly as coded.

A smart contract doesn’t change a bad business model. It just makes the scam run faster and with fewer human errors.

Final Verdict

CertiK’s audit of BitNest doesn’t validate it as a safe investment. It merely confirms that the contract performs the functions the developers programmed it to — even if those functions ultimately describe a recruitment-driven, unsustainable Ponzi operation.

Investors should not be fooled by technical jargon, audit badges, or smart-sounding whitepapers. If the economics don’t add up, the project doesn’t add up — no matter how clean the code is.

Stay skeptical. Stay protected. Expose the frauds.

About the Author Danny de Hek, also known as The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger, is a New Zealand-based investigative journalist specializing in exposing crypto fraud, Ponzi schemes, and MLM scams. His work has been featured by Bloomberg, The New York Times, The Guardian Australia, ABC News Australia, and other international outlets.

Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.

Recent Developments: BitNest Showing Clear Signs of Collapse

Since publishing this investigation, I have received new insider information from an active BitNest participant that strongly reinforces the conclusions already laid out in this blog. What is now unfolding inside BitNest follows a very familiar pattern seen in countless crypto Ponzi collapses.

According to multiple consistent reports, BitNest has largely stopped paying users, begun locking or disabling accounts, and muted its public Telegram channels to suppress growing panic. Those asking where their money is are being ignored or given scripted responses blaming vague USDT/USDC “system mismatches” or wallet compatibility issues. These explanations change regularly and are never backed by verifiable on-chain evidence.

At the same time, BitNest has quietly shifted communication into private, invite-only Telegram groups, limited to so-called “team leaders” — individuals with large downlines and commission exposure. While the broader community is told to “wait patiently,” these leaders are being reassured behind closed doors and encouraged to keep their networks calm, a classic containment tactic used during liquidity failure.

Rather than fixing withdrawals, BitNest is now aggressively pushing Mellion Coin (MEC), paid “nodes,” and new buy-in opportunities. Investors are being promised airdrops, expedited support, and future value — promises that, in multiple cases, are already not being honoured. This shift away from paying existing obligations toward selling new products is a major red flag and historically marks the late stage of Ponzi schemes.

Adding to these concerns, BitNest has changed its primary domain, another well-documented behaviour seen shortly before exits, rebrands, or shutdowns. When combined with payment delays, muted communities, selective communication, and token distractions, the picture becomes unmistakable.

It is also important to address the role of Munir Ali Kaid-Al Jannedy, a visible promoter of BitNest. During Zoom presentations that I personally attended and disrupted, Munir publicly stated that BitNest was not a scam and dismissed critics as uninformed. Those assurances were given despite structural flaws that made the current outcome inevitable. When promoters continue defending a system while withdrawals stall and communities are silenced, they are no longer offering opinions — they are misleading others.

None of what is happening now suggests a temporary technical issue. It reflects collapse management: slowing payouts, controlling information, introducing new products, protecting top recruiters, and asking ordinary investors to wait while fresh money is still being collected.

For anyone reading this because payments have stopped, accounts have been restricted, or answers no longer make sense — you are not alone, and you are not imagining things. This is exactly what the end of a crypto Ponzi looks like.

Disclaimer: How This Investigation Was Conducted

This investigation relies entirely on OSINT — Open Source Intelligence — meaning every claim made here is based on publicly available records, archived web pages, corporate filings, domain data, social media activity, and open blockchain transactions. No private data, hacking, or unlawful access methods were used. OSINT is a powerful and ethical tool for exposing scams without violating privacy laws or overstepping legal boundaries.

About the Author

I’m DANNY DE HEK, a New Zealand–based YouTuber, investigative journalist, and OSINT researcher. I name and shame individuals promoting or marketing fraudulent schemes through my YOUTUBE CHANNEL. Every video I produce exposes the people behind scams, Ponzi schemes, and MLM frauds — holding them accountable in public.

My PODCAST is an extension of that work. It’s distributed across 18 major platforms — including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, YouTube, and iHeartRadio — so when scammers try to hide, my content follows them everywhere. If you prefer listening to my investigations instead of watching, you’ll find them on every major podcast service.

You can BOOK ME for private consultations or SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS, where I share first-hand experience from years of exposing large-scale fraud and helping victims recover.

“Stop losing your future to financial parasites. Subscribe. Expose. Protect.”

My work exposing crypto fraud has been featured in: