I’m a complete crypto skeptic who would never touch anything like FTT, but it’s not an obvious Ponzi scheme. I think one of the troubles with crypto is that it’s very easy to operate what is effective a Ponzi scheme, without fully realizing it yourself.
A lot of people will explain to others that it’s a Ponzi scheme, but those people are making so much money that hey don’t want to hear it.
Crypto is a Ponzi scheme, and it always was. I’m not just talking about these companies, being Ponzi schemes, I’m talking about the whole ecosystem being a Ponzi scheme.
You can either listen to those of us telling you cook those a Ponzi scheme or you can focus on your greed. Your choice.
Is that they are totally obvious once they fall apart. No contradiction.
1. you should actually listen to the podcast, or at least skim the transcript[1], rather than trusting some second hand account by some youtuber. In the podcast, he's describing an abstract token that offers no utility, not FTT and certainly not the exchange itself.
2. At least from skimming the whitepaper for FTT, there's at least a plausible business model (eg. through exchange fees). That's not to say it's not a ponzi scheme, because many ponzi schemes claim they have a plausible business model, but that's different than literally describing yourself as a ponzi scheme. That would require you to put out a whitepaper that's like "we fully expect this token/company to make zero money and all profits to earlier investors come from later investors".
[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-04-25/odd-lots-...
I'm pretty certain most of us, at least in the BTC community, were mocking this yield farming as the new ICO since it's inception. The Effective Alturism, and his parent connection to Silicon Valley via Stanford make it clearer this was the typical disruptor cosplaying grifting that happens all the time: see Theranos.
Being connected and well off, should now be a sign of lack of inventive mind than having one. VCs think they are risk takers but rather go for well connected SV folks unconsciously or consciously to avoid risks. I hope these two three episodes like Theranos put some sense in them.
I don't know enough/anything about biochemistry so I don't know if the vision Theranos sold was even possible but how do I know that the all public all the time but only to someone physically nearby you photo sharing idea (of color) would work either?
How do you decide who to back?
[Techcrunch] https://techcrunch.com/2011/03/23/color-looks-to-reinvent-so...
Edit: another post on HN: what is "growth hacking"? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33582002
Or how about it is neutral?
That said, I think the real problem here was undercapitalization. It seems akin to throwing a party at your home that has a structural addition not up to code, and then when it collapses under the weight, saying it was just bad luck.
"Everything is a Ponzi" is a lazy analysis only made possible by having a lazy definition of what a Ponzi scheme is
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/ponzischeme.asp
I think the point is that there are more structures out there like this than we think. Social Security for example. Just do a web search and you'll see it's a rather mainstream question. Also there are so many unfunded public pensions that could meet the definition.
Perhaps the difference is transparency. We know these public programs are currently in bad shape, but private schemes are completely opaque until they collapse.
Many things from MLM to social security to VC markets can be viewed as a Ponzi scheme.
Yes, you can use these currencies as a store of value, and therefore get utility from exchanging them with somebody in the future, but that's not where the value of the currency itself derives from (which is 1. the utility of the currency itself (people want to transact in it in personal affairs, because it's more efficient and reliable than the alternative), and 2. the authority of the state (people must transact in it in state affairs)). Call it what you will, but it's not a ponzi scheme. If you're looking for things in traditional fintech that resemble a ponzi scheme, look at something like a non-voting stock without a dividend.
We mostly don't know why money/currency came into existence, it happened so long ago.
There is some evidence that at least in some places it was to fund armies or generally provide more state (or pre-state ruler) control of the economy.
I don't really know what impact that has on whatever argument you're having, but anyway.
Maybe for a while, but ultimately no - reality will assert itself even if you have stopped believing in it. Made-up valuations of faith-based assets are insubstantial, and anything that is entirely that is completely without substance.
There's no financial principle which says it is not a Ponzi scheme until you notice that it is.
