Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

Yes, but it is not a requirement to hide the fact that it is a Ponzi to be a Ponzi. It still is, if you know about it or not.


sort by: page size:

No, not all ponzi schemes are wrapped in a cloak of crypto.

I think it's still considered a ponzi scheme if you tell people exactly what you are doing.

Does a Ponzi scheme necessarily need deception in order to be a Ponzi scheme?

Seems like the essential component is more that future returns come from past investors.


aren't all ponzi schemes illegal, regardless of whether they're disclosed or not?

That's not what a Ponzi scheme is.

Then what is it? A ponzi scheme is inherently an embezzlement.

I was thinking about this a few weeks ago: is it illegal to run a Ponzi scheme if you openly advertise that it's a Ponzi scheme?

What isn't Ponzi scheme then?

That's not what a ponzi scheme is.

Nope. The word "ponzi" has a specific meaning. Just because an asset is sold from one investor to another without producing anything, doesn't make it a ponzi scheme. Otherwise you could say gold is a ponzi, or oil is a ponzi, etc.

That is not what a ponzi scheme is

Capital requirements are still there. Banks taking deposits and lending it to people doesn't make something a ponzi. Having actual assets with real value and having the potential for liquidity problems is actually the opposite of a ponzi.

That doesn't describe a Ponzi scheme though.

No, this isn't close to a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme is fraud where profits are paid to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

No, because a Ponzi scheme is one in which early investors are fraudulently paid "returns" out of the contribution of later investors. This is just speculation or a bubble (which I guess you could call "open Ponzi scheme", but that's a self contradicting term.)

True, but that doesn't mean we should give the best ponzi scheme a free pass. It's still a ponzi scheme.

I believe that may be correct, although in practice there is often/usually/historically-always (?) deception involved, because presumably no morally competent adult would willingly give their money to an honest Ponzi unless they knew they stood to benefit by being one of the first to pull out.

But as you point out, I don't think deception per se is really the defining feature of the Ponzi.


I don't think you exactly understand the definition of a Ponzi scheme. It might well be a bubble. But Ponzi? No.

And yet there is a legal definition of a Ponzi scheme.
next

Legal | privacy