29 ms·
Those who got in early made almost infinitely more than those who got in later (or who lost) - classic Ponzi scheme.
by zabzonk 6y ago
Those who got in early made almost infinitely more than those who got in later (or who lost) - classic Ponzi scheme.
- mumblemumble 6y agoThat is something that applies to all sorts of situations, and is in no way a litmus test for whether or not something is a Ponzi scheme. For it to be a Ponzi scheme, you first have to have some sort of centralized control of the ledger so that you can lie to people about the volume of assets they have in your care. And already we have made a complete departure from what Bitcoin is and how it works.
- user-the-name 6y agoBut there is a lie. The lie is the supposed value in USD of the bitcoins you hold.
- ghodith 6y agoI mean, if the person can transfer them right now for that amount in USD how is it a lie?
- user-the-name 6y agoIn a Ponzi scheme, you can transfer your funds right now in USD as well. Exactly the same situation.
- mumblemumble 6y agoLike I said up above, even if, for the sake of argument, it were subject to market manipulation, that would still not make it a Ponzi scheme. Not every financial crime is a Ponzi scheme.
- user-the-name 6y agoThe market manipulation is not the issue here. The issue is that Bitcoin acts exactly like a Ponzi scheme in practice, even if there is no central fraudster driving it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- IMTDb 6y agoIt also works when buying successful startup shares. In fact, it applies to almost everything that is successful: get in early and reap the benefit.
- petercooper 6y agoThose who got in early made almost infinitely more than those who got in later (or who lost) - classic Ponzi scheme. So did people who invested early in Apple, domain names, or property in Manhattan. I think the bare minimum you'd need to define something as being a Ponzi scheme is, well, a scheme - that is, an intention to defraud people, and I don't see such intent in the creation of Bitcoin.