The only thing separating this from being a Ponzi scheme is that there is a product, and it does have value. It’s overblown for sure, but it’s not a pure Ponzi scheme.
Literally the entire point of the comment you replied to, like making exactly that point.
Like; it’s not saying it’s a Ponzi scheme, it’s saying that this does everything a Ponzi scheme does, but with an extremely overvalued product, instead of no product at all.
so we don’t have a name for this type of fraud specifically, and we’re not calling it a Ponzi scheme because that, as we established, means something else. But it works very similarly, in the logistical sense. So much so that we can succinctly describe it - not by enumerating all the things it is - but instead juxtaposing it against a Ponzi scheme and establishing that it’s the same except if you change this one thing.
Perhaps we should name it instead? Like a Fauxnzi scheme? Like pronounce it like Fonzie so it’ll catch on with boomers? I mean maybe Henry Winkler doesn’t deserve all that but it’s descriptive no?
The only thing separating this from being a Ponzi scheme is that there is a product, and it does have value. It’s overblown for sure, but it’s not a pure Ponzi scheme.
The product doesn’t deliver on it’s promise though. It’s going to crash and burn real hard and we will be left holding the bag as usual.
Isn’t the lack of product the primary criteria for defining a ponzi scheme?
Literally the entire point of the comment you replied to, like making exactly that point.
Like; it’s not saying it’s a Ponzi scheme, it’s saying that this does everything a Ponzi scheme does, but with an extremely overvalued product, instead of no product at all.
so we don’t have a name for this type of fraud specifically, and we’re not calling it a Ponzi scheme because that, as we established, means something else. But it works very similarly, in the logistical sense. So much so that we can succinctly describe it - not by enumerating all the things it is - but instead juxtaposing it against a Ponzi scheme and establishing that it’s the same except if you change this one thing.
Perhaps we should name it instead? Like a Fauxnzi scheme? Like pronounce it like Fonzie so it’ll catch on with boomers? I mean maybe Henry Winkler doesn’t deserve all that but it’s descriptive no?
Pyrite rush, like a gold rush but with fool’s gold.
Just name it after all the key players
Yeah, that’s the point.