Playing control with worse access to blue mana than a Daze deck is a bit suspect. Here's the numbers on this one from the hypergeometric calculator:
-25.9% chance an opening hand can't produce basic blue.
-83.7% chance to have any blue in opening hand.
-78.3% chance to open a hand with 2 lands.
-14.2% chance an opening hand land is Saga (i.e. going to die).

The first and last percentages are particularly concerning taken together in a format with Wasteland and Daze. This is a lot of risk for a card (Ponder) that only has a 39.9% chance of being in an opening hand. It gets a little bleak when you're "smoothing out the mana" as your main target is to not mull the 1 land hand that can both make a blue mana and have a Ponder.

^when you put Ponder into a Xerox'ified mana base, that specific 1-lander mulligan risk is what you're trying not to get called on. That, and color fixing (which 2c decks that can use colorless mana don't really need), is where Ponder makes win % rise.

It's a bit difficult to roll that scenario that Ponder can bail us out on [b/c 78.3% chance of 2 lands in opening hand]. But, let's say we roll the 21.7% 1-lander; we'll round that to 1 game in every 5...in this minority of games, we can minimally round the numbers to define 5 scenarios:
-scenario 1, 2, and 3: had a basic blue.
-scenario 4: had a nonbasic blue.
-scenario 5: had zero blue.

This is where you start questioning Ponder's 39.9% success rate to be in the opening hand. Just how much mana security are we getting going into turn 2 when we multiply a fail rate of 60% [Ponder] by a fail rate of 20% [no blue in the 1-lander] +/- that additional 20% failrate if you lose the nonbasic into hostile Wasteland lottery.

The currency Ponder is trading to generate winrate is already devalued (b/c we don't care that much about color reqs of our deck). So you have to wonder "what if I just played 23 or 24 lands instead? Which build loses more b/c it mulligan'd? Which build will have more synergy with Standstill - Ponders or Otawara?"

Run the numbers and you realize as Xerox'ing happens the lands go down, the Ponders go up, and the mulling also rises. This is ofc a stunning revelation to everyone who uses Xerox b/c "it's the best thing you can do in any blue deck ever, b/c look at the results all the best decks play it".

The part they're missing is that when you play Standstill and you mulligan or kill yourself on Wasteland, you don't get to ignore everything bad that happened b/c you Ponder'd into an [insert 1-card combo, like Uro] you can jam no matter what. Jam that Standstill after things go south, and you give your opponent 3 more cards - you *will* lose.

Xerox'ify the mana and bind yourself to Ponder and you go down with the ship: you have to fight Chalice, Leo/Narset/Labyrinth. The more of these battles you have to fight, the harder it is to make a window for Standstill...which means that all the consistency of Ponder = seeing more Standstills in your top 3 that you'll never be able to cast [without auto-losing]. That's not the good kind of consistency.
---
^This is why Currency Converter is the correct card. When you put yourself in a crappy position with Ponder in a Standstill deck, it becomes pretty important to be able to flush the trash:
-need to be able to get the 1 drop into play through Chalice (i.e. Saga find Currency Converter), so you can dump cantrip cartel for castables.
-need to be able to dump cantrip cartel without losing CA to Narset/Leo/Labyrinth
-need to be able to dump mid-late game Standstills your deck can't cast (b/c the effects that let you stabilize for Standstill had their spot stolen by Ponder).
---
Currency Converter is quite good, it got a Standstill deck into a reasonably-sized top8 despite running Ponder. Certainly a feat Retrofitter couldn't help with.