[ksml]

Based on your phrasing of the SEC definition, the real estate market also feels like it fits the bill :-/

Edit: parent comment was edited, originally said:

> It actually matches the SEC definition of a Ponzi scheme haha, which happens to be a little bit less restrictive than a traditional definition.

> It's a negative sum wealth redistribution scheme the takes money from new entrants and gives it to miners and to old entrants. The miner portion is what makes it negative-sum.

[arcticbull]

Real estate is a productive asset, because you need somewhere to live. If folks were holding the real estate, empty, simply to resell I would agree - but I wouldn’t advocate real estate as the future backing of money either way.

[sudosysgen]

Can't you rent real estate assets, making it positive sum?

[imtringued]

The building is positive sum like any other investment. Nothing prevents you from building more. Land is zero sum for obvious reasons.

[arcticbull]

Not all investments are positive sum - metals are zero sum, proof of work coins are negative sum.

You can’t build a building on top of nothing so if land has a building on it you can apportion some of the productivity of the building to the land itself.

Agreed land without improvements is zero sum.

[sudosysgen]

I didn't mean for society, I really meant for the investors, and investor in real estate has the option to rent it out so buyers of real estate operate a positive sum business.

[sudosysgen]

I'm not talking about zero sum to society. I mean to investors. Land isn't zero sum because you can rent it out.

[nightski]

By that definition you can lend your crypto as well making it positive sum.

[sudosysgen]

When you lend your crypto you're transferring ownership, when you rent you aren't. So crypto loans only make money through interest while land makes rent well over interest.