Ok, so possibly (though not empirically proven) there is some misleading going on. Bad, I agree. But a Ponzi scheme? I think that damages his argument because

Ok, so possibly (though not empirically proven) there is some misleading going on. Bad, I agree. But a Ponzi scheme? I think that damages his argument because it doesn't really resemble a Ponzi scheme - indeed it sounds like an attempt to rationalise what is going as something illegal and thereby win support for the argument. Bad rhetoric.