A Ponzi scheme requires a central actor like Charles Ponzi, you're quoting a description of a "purely algorithmic stablecoin" which implies no central actor to channel new investors' money to old, no central actor to defraud the new investors and by telling them they've gained money when they haven't.
I guess they are comparable in the way that they both require a inflow of capital, is that what you're saying? That would make them similar to pyramid schemes and startups too. "Ponzi scheme" is more specific than "scheme."
A ponzi scheme largely refers to a scheme where you invest capital to get access to the future inflow of capital, where that future inflow of capital comes from other investors who are hoping to access future inflows of capital, etc.
The difference between this and a startup is obvious- a startup intends to become financially independent at some point
It certainly doesn't largely refer to that. It requires a central actor to defraud new investors, promise investors returns that haven't actually been realized, channel their money to pay off the old ones. If you read up on why it's named a Ponzi scheme you can understand how they work.
I see exactly zero existing definitions of ”ponzi scheme” that mentions any "central actor" so you seem to be creating an entirely new definition purely to avoid the "ponzi scheme" label.
I don't see either of those as at all synonymous with "central actor".
I would consider all the founders and early investors who knowingly promote the ponzi scheme as con artists.
I google the definition to charitably give your argument the benefit of the doubt. I don't see how you think phrases like the following make for effective communication or a strong argument:
> If you're having to google the definition of the term maybe there's still a little more you need to learn about it.
I think we're splitting hairs with the definition, it's not a ponzi but it acts like a ponzi. It's a weird distinction I suppose, I personally have no qualms calling it a ponzi scheme because new money is needed to pay old money.
A ponzi scheme is a description of a certain type of fraud. We can reduce it to it being the fraud of claiming new capital as investor dividends. It's a little more complex, but at its heart, that's what you got to do.
If there is no lie about the source of the money, it's not technically not a ponzi scheme.
A Ponzi scheme without anyone running it isn't a Ponzi scheme.
> new money is needed to pay old money
WOW that's a broad definition. Turns out my 401k is a Ponzi!
Do you know the difference between, say, a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme? Or is "new money is needed to pay old money" the most nuanced understanding you have?
It's pretty common, in the US context, to call Social Security a "Ponzi scheme".
The label is also controversial, but it should be an undisputed fact that people call it that, and it's obviously not particularly similar to Madoff's scheme.
Similarly, it's not hard to find people calling (particularly public) pension funds Ponzi schemes.
> A Ponzi scheme without anyone running it isn't a Ponzi scheme.
Citation please.
> Do you know the difference between, say, a pyramid scheme and a Ponzi scheme?
A pyramid scheme can make money for all participants but makes much more money for people high on the pyramid. Rising up the pyramid depends more on recruiting skill than time of entry.
A ponzi scheme doesn't actually make any money but merely redistrubtes money from later investors to earlier investors.