> Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you fo

> Edit: from a purely financial point of view, you can make the same argument for companies that do not pay dividends/share repo. Until they actually pay you for your shares, you’re effectively invested in a ponzi scheme. Yes.. by redefining what "ponzi scheme" means you can say anything is a ponzi scheme. Or alternatively you can use the accepted definition: --- Pon·zi scheme /ˈpänzē ˌskēm/ Learn to pronounce noun a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors. --- And when you apply this to "buying shares" you see it doesn't ring true. Probably because shares represent ownership in a business. Businesses can offer returns to investors such a price appreciation instead of dividends. Most tech/growth stocks don't pay dividends because they reinvest the free cash back into the business. There is probably a reason you are being downvoted, and your attempt to rewrite ponzi to suit your needs may be a contributing factor. While it is easy to arm-chair-critic people who many consider the best investors around, perhaps you can post your own investment history as a frame of reference? Clearly you feel they made mistakes, and that you did not? Lastly, investors have risk factors. Those who invested in Buffet/Munger did so because of their risk views and it is unlikely that those same people invested in bitcoin because of its risks. Maybe other assets beat out Buffet, but does this factor risks?