Why don't we just agree that it is legitimate to call it a scam (leaving the question of whether it is a scam out of the issue). I know that this is devolving into a semantic argument, but it clearly isn't a Ponzi scheme, as a particular type of scam.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment that represents account balances that are satisfied from a cash pool that only grows from new investors, and provides fictitious returns on the balances.
This really is quite a simple scheme, but alarmingly effective, because as long as people trust that the account balance is legitimate, and the returns are good, people will not exit the scheme. Sometimes, as (apparently) in Mr. Ponzi's case, this emerges not through an attempt to steal money, but in an attempt to buy time to recover from trading losses.
Do we disagree on the definition of Ponzi scheme here? If we agree on the definition, then I don't see any way that you can claim bitcoin/dogecoin/litecoin is a Ponzi scheme -- there are no account balances (in anything but the coin itself), there's no promised return, there's no cash fund that is satisfying investors making exits (unless there's a massive conspiracy of exchanges).
Maybe you can switch to comparing cryptocurrencies to pump-and-dump schemes? Or just call it a scam, an attempt by the creators to create wealth out of thin air by preying on the gullibility of libertarians.
You're right that there's no explicit account balance. Words are imperfect; ultimately bitcoin is a new type of scam. But I want a term that emphasises the disproportionate returns given to the early "investors" - an ordinary stock pump-and-dump doesn't have bitcoin's built-in deflation. I think a Ponzi scheme is the closest fit.
A Ponzi scheme is an investment that represents account balances that are satisfied from a cash pool that only grows from new investors, and provides fictitious returns on the balances.
This really is quite a simple scheme, but alarmingly effective, because as long as people trust that the account balance is legitimate, and the returns are good, people will not exit the scheme. Sometimes, as (apparently) in Mr. Ponzi's case, this emerges not through an attempt to steal money, but in an attempt to buy time to recover from trading losses.
Do we disagree on the definition of Ponzi scheme here? If we agree on the definition, then I don't see any way that you can claim bitcoin/dogecoin/litecoin is a Ponzi scheme -- there are no account balances (in anything but the coin itself), there's no promised return, there's no cash fund that is satisfying investors making exits (unless there's a massive conspiracy of exchanges).
Maybe you can switch to comparing cryptocurrencies to pump-and-dump schemes? Or just call it a scam, an attempt by the creators to create wealth out of thin air by preying on the gullibility of libertarians.