Not much unique information here. TLDR: Ponzi schemes are bad and unwind quickly. They can take the form of "normal companies". Peloton being one example (acco

Not much unique information here. TLDR: Ponzi schemes are bad and unwind quickly. They can take the form of "normal companies". Peloton being one example (according to the author). What's more interesting to me is just because a company may be a Ponzi scheme - which is bad for investors - doesn't mean the products are bad for consumers. It's almost like a wealth transfer instead. Investors support a business that consumers buy into, the investors get wiped out once the company unravels and lose, but the consumers who bought use and continue to use the products get to keep the product - assuming in this concrete case that Peloton doesn't lock everyone out remotely. This doesn't mean the company is bad, just that it's a bad investment. The product can still be extremely successful and useful. Does this mean the company failed to deliver value? Depends on who you ask. The consumers who bought the products will say no. Only the investors will say yes. Companies exist for reasons beyond returns to investors. They should aim to be sustainable, but if they're not, it doesn't necessarily mean they're a "bad" company.