| I knew what it was, but looking it up helped ensure my argument was complete. I know what a Volvo P1800 is, but if I saw one on the street, I'd still compare it to a picture on my phone to be certain. > And you glossed right over this: the necessity of a purposefully fraudulent bad actor to redistribute the new investors' "investments" to old investors. I did not, but here: Any person who currently own BTC, and publicly state that it will continue to rise in price indefinitely are bad actors intent on defrauding the public. This applies doubly to individuals with technical or financial backgrounds that claim their are an authority on the subject. There. You may not agree, but you can't continue to argue that I'm ignoring this point. > in a pyramid scheme new members are promised a share of the money taken from every additional member that they recruit. "Evangelizing" by itself is not proof of a pyramid scheme. When evangelizing crosses into market manipulation, then it is. I feel that people are making claims about the price of BTC can rise, for the purpose of attracting more investors and increasing the price. Thus, attempting to profit from each member they recruit. The margin can be small per recruit, as the audience is literally worldwide. I do feel that there are evangelists that are primarily motivated by political principals. But I also think nearly every investor is motivated, in some part, by greed. |
Market manipulation is not specific enough to qualify as a pyramid. Pyramids have a central org that promises rewards for recruiting; it's not an abstract idea like "make comments on the internet and maybe someone will believe you."
You also left out many qualifying factors, again because they plainly don't fit Bitcoin or your argument.
If you'd like to deride Bitcoin, you'd do better to call it a generic term like "scam." It weakens your argument to call it something specific like a pyramid scheme, which actually has a real definition.