[xqk8]

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."

[saalweachter]

Technically it has to be run from the Ponzi region of France.

[xqk8]

He was Italian, C− for effort

[jonfw]

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

[xqk8]

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.

[shkkmo]

> It requires a central actor

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.

[RaketenStadt]

Then you didn't look at wikipedia which mentions "the con artist" and "the operator of the scheme" several times.

If you're having to google the definition of the term maybe there's still a little more you need to learn about it.

[shkkmo]

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.

[RaketenStadt]

Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

Either:

    1. I'm trying to dodge the label "Ponzi scheme" for a reason you haven't provided (maybe you think I have millions invested in this shitcoin?)
    2. This isn't a Ponzi scheme, and you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is

Which explanation is simpler?

[raziel2701]

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.

[bena]

Forget "central actors" or whatever.

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.

[perl4ever]

If that's your definition, fine, but lots of people use it in a looser sense and have forever.

Nobody wins in an argument over which definition of a word or phrase is correct.

Whatever happened to the debates over whether something was ironic?

[bena]

That argument can be used in a lot of contexts where people wouldn't. Regardless/irregardless, literally, gif, decimate, etc.

And I'm not saying don't say it's like one, I'm just saying it's technically not one.

[xqk8]

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?

[perl4ever]

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.

[wombatpm]

Your pension, if you have one is a ponzi. Your 401k is your money subject to special tax rules.

[shkkmo]

> 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.