Exhibit 1, Why We Don't TRUST The "Experts"

In partnership with

How 433 Investors Unlocked 400X Return Potential

Institutional investors back startups to unlock outsized returns. Regular investors have to wait. But not anymore. Thanks to regulatory updates, some companies are doing things differently.

Take Revolut. In 2016, 433 regular people invested an average of $2,730. Today? They got a 400X buyout offer from the company, as Revolut’s valuation increased 89,900% in the same timeframe.

No wonder 10K+ everyday people are taking the chance on Pacaso.

Founded by a former Zillow exec, Pacaso’s co-ownership tech reshapes the $1.3T vacation home market. They’ve earned $110M+ in gross profit to date, including 41% YoY growth in 2024 alone. They even reserved the Nasdaq ticker PCSO.

The same institutional investors behind Uber, Venmo, and eBay backed Pacaso. And you can join them. But not for long. Pacaso’s investment opportunity ends September 18.

Invest While You Still Can

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}

If you ever needed a prime example of why we don’t trust the “experts,” just take a look at this gaslighting operation. The recent KTLA article proclaiming Los Angeles as the “second safest” large city in the United States, based on a study by SmartAsset, is a masterclass in data manipulation designed to paint a rosy picture that bears no resemblance to the reality on the ground. This isn’t just a case of questionable statistics—it’s a deliberate attempt to mislead the public, erode trust in institutions, and dismiss the lived experiences of residents who know the truth. Institutional trust is at an all-time low, and this kind of nonsense is exactly why.

Let’s start with the study itself. SmartAsset’s ranking, which KTLA eagerly amplified, relies on a cocktail of metrics that conveniently downplay the city’s rampant crime problem. The methodology emphasizes adjusted crime rates—supposedly accounting for population and other factors—alongside traffic fatality ratios. Yes, you read that right: a key indicator of “safety” hinges on how many people die in car accidents relative to the number of crashes, rather than, say, the frequency of shootings, home invasions, or gang violence. In a city where freeway speeds have crawled to an average of 17 mph due to congestion, it’s no surprise that traffic fatalities are low—people simply aren’t moving fast enough to kill each other. This metric is a flimsy prop, propped up to mask the more alarming truth: Los Angeles is a city where an 18-year-old woman can be gunned down on a Metro bus, leaving her loved ones devastated, and where residents report nightly home invasions and gang-controlled parks.

The manipulation doesn’t stop there. Crime data, the backbone of any safety ranking, is only as reliable as the reporting system behind it. Since March 2024, the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has transitioned to a new Records Management System aligned with the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). This shift, while framed as an improvement, has introduced inconsistencies in how crimes are recorded and categorized. Historical datasets from the city’s Open Data Portal show that crime statistics prior to 2020 were transcribed from paper reports, a process prone to human error, while more recent data reflects calls for service rather than confirmed incidents. The lack of transparency about how this transition affects current figures—coupled with the LAPD’s decision to stop releasing detailed demographic breakdowns of homicides after 2023—creates a perfect storm for data distortion. If arrests aren’t made or crimes aren’t reported, they don’t exist in the statistics. It’s a sleight of hand that allows officials to claim a 17% drop in homicides while residents describe a city spiraling into chaos.

This isn’t accidental. The incentives to manipulate data are clear: political survival. City leaders, including Mayor Karen Bass, have touted declining homicide rates as evidence of effective governance, despite anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise. By cherry-picking metrics like traffic safety and adjusting crime rates to obscure underreported incidents—such as the Metro bus shooting that KTLA itself reported just hours before the “safest city” claim—the study becomes a tool for propaganda rather than analysis. The omission of critical context, like the impact of reduced police funding or the reallocation of resources to community programs, further exposes the agenda. A 2022 report from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund highlighted how similar narratives about “defunding the police” were used to manipulate public perception, showing that homicide spikes occurred nationwide, not just in cities with budget cuts. Yet, this nuance is conveniently ignored to prop up a false narrative of safety in Los Angeles.

The result is gaslighting at its best. Residents who witness deteriorating parks, rampant homelessness, and violent street takeovers are told their fears are unfounded, that the data proves they’re wrong. A Council on Criminal Justice analysis from mid-2025 noted the FBI’s unexplained revisions to crime counts in 2024, further eroding public trust by leaving questions unanswered. When official statistics diverge so wildly from everyday reality—when a study ranks LA as “second safest” while locals report being afraid to defend themselves due to prosecution risks—it’s no wonder people tune out the “experts.” This isn’t just incompetence; it’s a deliberate effort to control the narrative, and it’s backfiring spectacularly.

The broader implications are dire. Trust in institutions—government, media, law enforcement—has plummeted because people can see through the charade. When KTLA and SmartAsset peddle a ranking that defies common sense, they don’t just undermine their own credibility; they fuel a growing cynicism that threatens democratic discourse. The public isn’t stupid. They know a manipulated dataset when they see one, and they’re tired of being patronized by studies that prioritize optics over truth. The LAPD’s decision to halt detailed crime reports after 2023 only deepens the suspicion that the data is being scrubbed to fit a predetermined outcome.

In the end, this KTLA article and its underpinning study are less about safety and more about saving face. They’re a symptom of a system that prioritizes image over integrity, and they’re a glaring reason why institutional trust is crumbling. Until the “experts” start leveling with the public—acknowledging the messy reality of crime in Los Angeles rather than spinning fairy tales—expect the distrust to grow. This isn’t just a flawed study; it’s a wake-up call to a society fed up with being gaslit.