5 ms·
>They aren't the future, they are deeply flawed ponzi-schemes, this is obvious. By definition, they are not ponzi schemes. None of your claims are obvious, and
by Jabanga 9y ago
>They aren't the future, they are deeply flawed ponzi-schemes, this is obvious.
By definition, they are not ponzi schemes. None of your claims are obvious, and implying otherwise is disingenuous.
>But we better find out what the future is before they start converting the gullible masses to a currency that is less secure in many ways that is swept under the rug.
Ah yes the "gullible masses", and the wise men and women who know better.
How about we respect other people as adults who have a right to buy whatever they want with their own money and stop trying to treat them like sheep that need to be protected from their own gullibility. Your presumptions of knowing what's best for them, to the point where you'd like them to be denied the option of buying them, are extremely condescending.
- ruytlm 9y ago>By definition, they are not ponzi schemes. None of your claims are obvious, and implying otherwise is disingenuous. So, it doesn't meet the technical definition of a very specific type of financial fraud, therefore everything is hunky dory?
- d23 9y agoNo, it's just that the folks railing against it sound like sour grapes. If you want to pick a convincing analogy, do so. Calling it a Ponzi scheme doesn't fit and makes it sound like you're more interested in being contrarian than making a substantive point.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]