| I agree that there are many definitions by which bitcoin is not a ponzi, most clearly it is not fraudulent. But we can have a look how Wikipedia[1] defines a ponzi: "a fraudulent investment operation where the operator, an individual or organization, pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the operators by new investors, rather than from profit earned through legitimate sources." Now, with the obvious note that bitcoin is not fraudulent, you must agree that "bitcoin (as an investment) pays returns to its investors from new capital paid to the network by new investors, rather than from profit earned through any other source" And any claim that bitcoin offers sustainable positive returns is precisely as mathematically unsustainable than any ponzi scheme. That holds as long as there is new money flowing in. Not longer. That is very similar to a ponzi. (And of course, any commodity bubble has this same property.) Overall, I think there are so many similarities between the investment logic between bitcoin and a ponzi, that the comparison is justifiable. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme |
Which makes it not a ponzi, really that's all there is too it; fraud is a necessary pre-condition to call something a ponzi. No fraud, no ponzi.
If you remove the fraud element as you are attempting to do, then virtually every investment counts as a ponzi, all insurance counts as a ponzi, because paying investors with money from newcomers is a thing common to a lot more than just ponzi schemes. The world is Ponzi SCHEME, the scheme means fraudulent, scam, etc. If something isn't fraudulent it is not a ponzi no matter how many other traits it shares with ponzi schemes. The comparison is thus not justifiable.