Doesn't feel unfair to me. This is a fairly straightforward application of the principles behind the law of restitution and unjust enrichment. Here, an early P

Doesn't feel unfair to me. This is a fairly straightforward application of the principles behind the law of restitution and unjust enrichment. Here, an early Ponzi scheme participant was enriched at the expense of a later Ponzi scheme participant. The remedy is to disgorge the profits of the first so as to make the second whole again. Here we're upset because we don't believe that the act of investing was 'unjust', but functionally being 'unjust' in this area doesn't necessarily mean 'wrong'. It can mean unjustified, or lacking a proper basis. Viewed in this way, one's timing within the ambit of a Ponzi scheme would need to be the justification to entitle early participants to outsized profit. Should our legal system lend force to this type of arrangement, or unwind them as best it can?