3 ms·

For some reason calling out "it's not achshually a Ponzi scheme!" is the new "correlation is not causation!!" Yes, I agree with you, it doesn't have the featur

For some reason calling out "it's not achshually a Ponzi scheme!" is the new "correlation is not causation!!" Yes, I agree with you, it doesn't have the features of the Wikipedia definition of a Ponzi scheme. But language changes over time. I think the salient point that people now think about when calling things a Ponzi scheme is "Early investors are aware that, at its root, the investment sucks. So their goal is to entice new investors to buy into the original investment, which has the effect of transferring wealth from new to old investors, with the hope that the old investors can get out before the gig is up, thus leaving the newer investors as bag holders." That description applies both to the original definition of a Ponzi scheme, and to newer uses that don't include other features of the original Ponzi scheme.

0xf8 3y ago
This response to should have all but conclusively ended the silly debate in outlining the semantic drift of the term “Ponzi scheme” to encapsulate the relevant spectrum of linguistic variations, and yet…
jhanschoo 3y ago
And language change results in miscommunication and confusion where a community meets another that doesn't have the same changes in theirs... as has happened here. The use of the more general term fraud would have been more appropriate. That's why we typically aim to use a sanitized, more standard and formal register when communicating broadly rather than to friends and family.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- qwytw 3y ago
  What the comment above described is not fraud, though. It's much closer to a Ponzi scheme.
VirusNewbie 3y ago
That is extremely different than a ponzi scheme. Plenty of people who buy and sell stock every day think the underlying investment sucks. Using imprecise wording should be discouraged and it reflects poorly on people who do so.
nonameiguess 3y ago
You described any business going south where the incumbent insiders know that and future investors do not. As long as the company sells some sort of real product and earns revenue, even if it's lying about how much or the quality of that product, it's not a Ponzi. What makes a Ponzi is money from investors is the only money at all. There is no actual investment being made, not even bad ones.

0xf8 3y ago

This response to should have all but conclusively ended the silly debate in outlining the semantic drift of the term “Ponzi scheme” to encapsulate the relevant spectrum of linguistic variations, and yet…

jhanschoo 3y ago

And language change results in miscommunication and confusion where a community meets another that doesn't have the same changes in theirs... as has happened here. The use of the more general term fraud would have been more appropriate. That's why we typically aim to use a sanitized, more standard and formal register when communicating broadly rather than to friends and family.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
qwytw 3y ago
What the comment above described is not fraud, though. It's much closer to a Ponzi scheme.

VirusNewbie 3y ago

That is extremely different than a ponzi scheme. Plenty of people who buy and sell stock every day think the underlying investment sucks. Using imprecise wording should be discouraged and it reflects poorly on people who do so.

nonameiguess 3y ago

You described any business going south where the incumbent insiders know that and future investors do not. As long as the company sells some sort of real product and earns revenue, even if it's lying about how much or the quality of that product, it's not a Ponzi. What makes a Ponzi is money from investors is the only money at all. There is no actual investment being made, not even bad ones.