[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?

[shkkmo]

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

There can be multiple operators.

I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.

Your argument is akin to claiming that a three legged dog is not a dog because dogs have four legs.

I wouldn't be so uncharitable as to presume to know why you have chosen to make this argument.

I think your argument would be clearer if you took a step back and explained why you think that "central actor" is such a critical part of the meaning of "ponzi scheme" rather than a incidental feature common to ponzi schemes.