4 ms·
>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 definiti
by 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]