3 ms·
> this is exactly Ponzi without a CA Which would be...not a Ponzi Scheme. What makes you say that besides "junk on social media?"
by JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago
> this is exactly Ponzi without a CA
Which would be...not a Ponzi Scheme. What makes you say that besides "junk on social media?"
- x87678r 6y agoHonestly I think BTC matches this definition - just there is no organizer. Esp the last paragraph. https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-basics/glossary/ponzi-schemes https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...
- JxLS-cpgbe0 6y ago> there is no organizer So...not a Ponzi Scheme, by the definition you linked to > Ponzi used funds from new investors to pay fake “returns” to earlier investors > they use money from new investors to pay earlier investors and may steal some of the money for themselves There is no "Ponzi," no "they," no one "paying" anyone directly, no "stealing." It's about as far from a Ponzi Scheme as you can imagine. It's The Wizard of Lies without de Niro. If I go online and post "Apple stock is great!" and it makes someone buy AAPL, and I profit off that as a shareholder, is that a Ponzi scheme? No? Well BTC is that but without even the business to hold stock in. How could you possibly argue that was a Ponzi Scheme unless, say, you didn't know what that was before you googled it...