LoginSignup
profile image
Stefan21
@stefan_21
4Mon·

Is Harald right? Is $BTC (-3.31%)
a Ponzi scheme?⛄(866845)


Thanks for your contribution @Madhatter5566 !

With this post I would like to take the opposite position once again and express my opinion. If you missed Harald's post today, you should read it before this post to know what it's about: https://getqu.in/duSdcl/


What is a Ponzi scheme?

Definition according to Harald's Wikipedia article:

"A Ponzi scheme or pyramid scheme is a business model that requires a constantly growing number of participants to function, like a snowball rolling down a slope and constantly growing. Supposed profits or returns, or rather liquidity surpluses, are generated almost exclusively by new participants in the system contributing or generating their own capital. Sometimes there is no product at all or only an overpriced product, making it a fraudulent offense."


The following core elements of a Ponzi scheme can be derived from this definition:

(1) The need for a constantly growing circle of participants: The system only works if new participants are continuously added.

(2) Profits from the capital of new participants: The returns of existing participants are mainly financed by the deposits of new members.

(3) Missing or overpriced product: Often there is no real product or the product offered is overpriced and only serves as a pretext.


In addition, the following characteristics of a Ponzi scheme are mentioned to distinguish it from a Ponzi scheme:

(1) Typical "incentive": High profits through a one-time investment in order to subsequently distribute the product yourself. The Ponzi scheme is often not a genuine product that is usually traded. It is often only permitted to sell the "product" to customers who are also distributors or want to become distributors.

(2) Payments: One-time or recurring participation fees. The profits come from the new customers that you have recruited yourself.

(3) Interaction with the founder: Interaction with the founder sometimes does not take place. New investors are recruited at all levels of the pyramid scheme.

(4) How it works: Fees from new customers finance the success fees of current participants.

(5) Collapse: Fairly quickly, because in order to maintain the system, a multiple of new customers must be acquired at each level.


Now that we have clarified the core elements and characteristics, we can take a step-by-step look at the extent to which Bitcoin fulfills these characteristics.


Applying the core elements of a pyramid scheme to Bitcoin:

(1) Need for a constantly growing pool of participants

  • Ponzi scheme: The system continuously needs new participants to finance the profits of existing members. Without a constant influx of new members, the system collapses.
  • Bitcoin: Bitcoin is a decentralized network that functions independently of the number of users. The functionality of Bitcoin does not depend on a constantly growing number of participants. Even if the number of users stagnates or decreases, the network remains functional and does not collapse. This is ensured by the "Bitcoin control loops", which I have already presented in detail in another article. But to explain it very briefly: the miners are service providers. They expend energy to confirm user transactions or to include them in a block. If the number of users and therefore the volume of transactions falls, it will be even more difficult for miners to continue operating their business profitably than it already is. As a result, some unprofitable miners will (have to) take their devices offline, causing the hashrate to fall. As a result, the blocks are confirmed more slowly. After 2016 blocks, the so-called "Difficulty Adjustment" takes place and the difficulty for mining is corrected downwards. As a result, mining becomes more profitable again for all other miners. The network therefore stabilizes itself and does not collapse.


(2) Profits through capital from new participants

  • Ponzi scheme: The returns of existing participants are mainly financed by the deposits of new members. There is a redistribution of funds from new to existing members.
  • Bitcoin: When buying Bitcoin, a buyer exchanges his money for a digital good on an open market. There is no central authority that collects deposits and distributes profits. Profits or losses are created by market movements based on supply and demand. There is no direct financial link between new and existing Bitcoin holders, and the gains of some are not necessarily the losses of others. To argue that the previous buyers benefit from the capital of the new buyers is of course indirectly true, but it is the same for any other asset traded on the market.


(3) Missing or overpriced product

  • Ponzi scheme: Often there is no real product, or the product is just a pretext and is overpriced. The actual value of the product is low or non-existent.
  • Bitcoin: Bitcoin is a trustless, fair, censorship-resistant, democratically regulated network with a real benefit for many people worldwide. That is a fact. Just because you don't recognize this benefit for yourself doesn't mean you should conclude that everyone else does. Bitcoin enables peer-to-peer transactions without a third party. We here in the western world have an easy time discussing whether we see Bitcoin as an asset or store of value or whether it could be a currency - or a Ponzi scheme after all. Unfortunately, the majority of people live in autocratic/dictatorial regimes - sometimes with high double to triple-digit inflation rates. For these people, Bitcoin is not an alternative, it is a necessity. For anyone who doubts this, I can warmly recommend the book "The Trojan Horse of Freedom" by Alex Gladstein, CEO of the Human Rights Foundation. The whole book, from cover to cover, is about how people around the world are using Bitcoin to protect themselves from oppression and how Bitcoin offers them the chance of a better life.


Applying the additional features to differentiate it from Ponzi schemes:

(1) Typical "incentive"

  • Ponzi scheme: High profits from a one-time investment to then distribute the product itself. Often products may only be sold to people who also want to become part of the scheme.
  • Bitcoin: There is no distribution structure or obligation to resell Bitcoin to others or recruit new participants. Anyone can buy or sell Bitcoin without being part of a network or distribution system. There is no compulsion or financial incentive to get others to buy Bitcoin.


(2) Payments

  • Ponzi scheme: One-time or recurring participation fees. Profits come from the new customers you have recruited yourself.
  • Bitcoin: There are no participation fees or membership fees to use or purchase Bitcoin. Profits or losses result from the individual decision to buy or sell Bitcoin at a certain price. There is no mechanism to profit directly by recruiting new participants.


(3) Interaction with the founder

  • Ponzi scheme: Interaction with the founder sometimes does not take place. New investors are recruited at all levels of the system.
  • Bitcoin: Bitcoin was developed by a person or group under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto, who has not been active since 2011. There is no founder who actively recruits new participants or controls the system. Bitcoin is open source and is further developed by a global community of developers and users. The claim that Satoshi Nakamoto enriched himself as the head of the "Ponzi scheme" remains just that: a claim. In reality, Satoshi's coins have never been moved, which speaks against his intention to enrich himself. Furthermore, there was no premine in Bitcoin, which I tried to explain to Harald - but he obviously misunderstood. Satoshi mined the first Bitcoin block, the Genesis block. However, it was designed in such a way that there was no block reward of 50 Bitcoin at the time. So he didn't "earn" anything with it. He then waited 6! days until other network participants joined in and mined with him. From then on, Satoshi also continued to mine. This means that all Bitcoin was mined in a market-based process. The coins were not created behind closed doors, as is the case with Ethereum, for example. I am also not claiming that ETH is a Ponzi scheme - I just wanted to use this as an example for Harald.


(4) How it works

  • Ponzi scheme: Fees from new customers fund the success fees of current participants.
  • Bitcoin: There is no structure in which fees from new participants flow to existing users. Transaction fees are paid to miners who secure the network and not to other Bitcoin holders. The miners provide a real service by verifying transactions and securing the blockchain.


(5) Collapse

  • Ponzi scheme: The system collapses fairly quickly as multiple new customers must be acquired at each level, requiring exponential growth.
  • Bitcoin: Bitcoin has now been around since 2009 and has seen numerous ups and downs. It does not depend on the recruitment of new participants to function. The network is robust and dynamically adapts to the number of active miners and users because of the control loops.


Summary and conclusion:

Based on the above points, in my opinion, Bitcoin does not the criteria of a pyramid scheme. Here are the main reasons again:

  • There is no central authority or organization that recruits new participants or profits from their deposits.
  • The viability of Bitcoin does not depend on the constant recruitment of new participants.
  • Bitcoin offers a real benefit as a trustless, fair, censorship-resistant, democratically regulated network
  • Bitcoin is traded on open markets and the price is determined by supply and demand.
  • There is no mechanism by which funds are redistributed from new participants to existing ones.


Finally, I would like to briefly address the valuation issue that I think Harald was getting at:


Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. This may come as a surprise to some people, but I agree with Harald. According to the Austrian school, however, this "intrinsic value" does not even exist, as value is ALWAYS subjective. If I subjectively estimate the value of a good to be higher than its market price, I am prepared to buy the good. The seller, in turn, only sells the good if he subjectively estimates its value to be lower than its market price.


Bitcoin does not generate any cash flow, which is why it must have an intrinsic value of exactly 0 from a traditional financial perspective. This is why many economists find it so difficult to attribute a value to Bitcoin.


However, Bitcoin does have intrinsic properties that make it valuable. I have presented some of these in this article, for example: https://getqu.in/G8t0Nm/


I hope I have now been able to give you my view on the subject. This has caused heated discussions between myself, a few others and Harald in various threads here over the last few days.


I think it's great that Harald has written a constructive contribution regarding his views. That deserves recognition - I wouldn't have expected it.


And I didn't want to just clumsily point my finger at a few of his arguments and claim that they are nonsense, but rather consciously try to take a constructive counter-position.


You can and should all form your own opinion on Bitcoin. Under no circumstances should you invest in something like Bitcoin because there are people like me who keep publishing articles about it - instead, you should form your own opinion according to the motto "Do your own research" and make your decisions based on this. To do this, it is also important to listen to controversial opinions from different people.


Conclusion: I also leave it up to the reader :D


Have a nice day!


#bitcoin

55
153 Comments
profile image
DieEnte7@DieEnte7
4Mon
Nice contribution, even as a Bitcoin skeptic I have to acknowledge 👏🏻 And that's exactly what's important, not just blowing your own horn loudly, but also respectfully dealing with opposing opinions and then forming your own opinion 😁 So chapeau 🎩
•
19
•
profile image
Schöbi@schoebi
4Mon
Really, very good rebuttal! Don't you two fancy a podcast? 👌🏼
•
6
•
profile image
Metis@Metis
4Mon
I don't have any Bitcoin and consider most cryptos to be scams or gambling products, but the comparison with a Ponzi scheme also seemed rather strange to me. Sure, you need enough people to fundamentally "participate" in something like this, but not like a Ponzi scheme. You don't gain (directly) from others buying coins and/or generating new customers (new buyers). In a Ponzi scheme, most of the money is earned through commission or participation in the payments of others. Only the top layers of the system win. This is not the case with Bitcoin. Of course, you win or lose with the fluctuations in the value of the coin. But anyone can basically make a profit if they buy at exactly the right time.
•
3
•
profile image
Metis@Metis
4Mon
FunFact: I could now pay for my dream printer with Bitcoin at my favorite 3D printer manufacturer. 🥲
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@Metis For the actual function, you always need new users, as the transfer unit increases daily and you need a new user to buy yours in order to carry out the actual trade. How else is the coffee shop that sells you a cup of coffee for Bitcoin supposed to brew your next coffee tomorrow? Without buying more coffee? And Bitcoin would have to be a recognized currency by the bank (which it is not) or I need someone to exchange it for a recognized one.

In a Ponzi scheme, all levels earn money until it collapses. Then those who still hold the product lose. And with Bitcoin there is this pyramid at the bottom. The first mined Bitcoins for cents, the current ones for 60K. Even if the price continues to rise (which it may), the old users will benefit the most. This also has nothing to do with the fluctuations.

Whether commission or more expensive resale does not really matter to my knowledge. Just like there are enough scams with "collector's items" that you just have to hold on to long enough.
••
profile image
Metis@Metis
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Why do you need new users all the time? For the euro or other currencies, you only need enough existing users and exchange rates between the currencies.
It's a means of bartering like any other. Whether shells, stones or dollars/euros or even Bitcoin.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 As I wrote in the article, you don't need that :)
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@Metis Yes and no. It would work if the trade in goods were in full swing, but then you wouldn't need Bitcoin at all and could use an official currency instead

Let's go back to the use case: Cafe sells you coffee for Bitcoin. How does the cafe get new coffee to sell again tomorrow? By storing the Bitcoins for all eternity? Then it lives off the substance. Nonsense, it has to find someone to exchange the Bitcoin back into a currency. One that it can use to buy more coffee. Because Bitcoin is simply not an enforced currency. So you need someone to take the Bitcoin you have taken. This is then a new user who needs the Bitcoin for a transfer. And the miners who maintain the network also need new users every day, because they pay for the electricity and the hardware. Otherwise bitcoin would be dead immediately, as Stefan writes. The miner himself has nothing from bitcoin itself.

Now the system would collapse immediately if the cafe could not find a buyer. The loss of trust is slowed down by the price increase making it attractive to hold. However, if you don't trade the Bitcoin away, you first finance this from your company's assets. Which is why Bitcoin has somehow never caught on.
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Then you hold a transfer unit and have not completed the exchange. And if no one buys it from you at some point, the Bitcoin is worthless. Then you have given someone a commodity in exchange for Bitcoin for nothing. An object of exchange lives from being exchanged at some point. If it is not, Bitcoin would be dead tomorrow. How else is a miner supposed to pay his bill or buy a coffee at a cafe if there is no one to buy the Bitcoin? Weird.
••
profile image
Metis@Metis
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Well, but why should you only rely on official state currencies? That's part of the idea behind Bitcoin, that it doesn't run via the state. After how many wars did real assets suddenly become a currency? After just about every one where you couldn't get anything for the state currency. And this currency is usually not even worth the paper it was printed on. Btw, you basically don't need a new user if you can also pay your coffee bean supplier with Bitcoin. Otherwise, you always have the option of exchanging the Bitcoin back into a state currency. Or just exchange the required price in official currency.
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@Metis Bitcoin would have to be a currency and generally recognized. Yes. If it were possible for one currency to be used all over the world, that would be great. But it isn't, because there are political and national borders and economic areas. If this full economic area existed, there would also be a global currency and Bitcoin would be pure shadow money.

In paper terms, Bitcoin is there to circumvent these borders that now exist. Yes, it only works half-heartedly, because the goods I want to buy have a Pesky border on the way to me that would intercept my Putin oil or Bolivian coke.

Yes and no, you may have the option here. Try exchanging for dollars in Russia. And the exchange requires someone to give you the money in exchange for the Bitcoin. This is the new user. The money doesn't just appear in your account. And the new user in turn needs an application for Bitcoin.
••
profile image
Metis@Metis
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Yes, your trading partner must recognize the currency. But in your example with Russia and the US dollar, he also has to recognize it. But does the US dollar have no further value just because it cannot be used to pay in Russia? No. Bitcoin is not yet a globally recognized currency. But it's not completely out of the question that this won't happen. Precisely because more and more regular stores are already making it possible to pay with it. Every payment method and every payment processor such as Klarna or Paypal - or even the Visa card - started somewhere - and those who said that it would never catch on. (As has often been said about the Internet). And it is precisely the Internet that makes global success possible in the first place.
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@Metis Well, your trading partner gets a Bitcoin. This means that the exchange risk into his or another currency lies with him. If this is too high for him, he won't accept it. Which brings us back to the point that it's actually harmful if you can't find a new user.... Because you don't give away your goods in exchange for something you can't get rid of.

If Bitcoin were to solve this problem, it would make sense again.
But does that have any relevance at all for the actual private bitcoin investor? What do you care if you can send money to someone on Lake Baikal?

For the café around the corner, exchanging in Bitcoin beforehand is quite pointless. The energy costs for the transfer are also higher than a paper rag. The actual idea was the irreversible payment of things without intermediaries and anonymously. It actually has little to do with the use case as a daily currency. Especially not privately. I'm the fool who will never see the money again at best. See white paper on what the blockchain is actually supposed to do

Of course, nobody knows what the future holds. But I'm not really worried if Bitcoin turns the corner. For the transfer/exchange, what's written on the thing is irrelevant. At least I don't see any need for Fomo
••
View all 84 further answers
Rafza473@Rafza473
4Mon
Thank you Stefan. Very good, professional rebuttal👏
•
3
•
Walter S.@Roots
4Mon
Hello stefan_21
Great contribution thanks...
I think it's well presented... I also read Harald's presentation...I read up a bit myself...
Conclusion for me: bitcoin is not a fastball system... riskier by all means...
Thanks for the clarification.
•
2
•
profile image
V7Hodl@V7Hodl
4Mon
@Roots If you read both versions objectively, it's actually not difficult to determine who knows more about the topic and has the better arguments😅
•
1
•
profile image
Charmin@Charmin
4Mon
Both positions have good theses. The question I always ask myself:

What, apart from the high price, is really left of bitcoin in the real world? And because I don't have an answer to this, I continue to see Bitcoin as a gamble that works well for some and very, very badly for many more.
•
1
•
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Charmin If you are interested, I can recommend the book "The Trojan Horse of Freedom" mentioned in the article :)
•
1
•
profile image
Hitchkock@Hitchkock89
4Mon
@Charmin That's how I see it too. As long as the whole thing doesn't arrive in everyday life, where I can easily trade and pay with it, the whole thing is just gambling for me. And no, any weird online stores or "ATMs" don't count for me.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Hitchkock89 You can already trade with it without any problems :D
Of course you can't pay with it without any problems. Of course you can use it from person to person, but in our everyday life the euro is the legal tender. I have already paid with Bitcoin in various restaurants and cafés, but the owners are Bitcoiners and then put the euro amount in cash themselves. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible to use it for tax purposes. And that is currently not the claim of Bitcoin. And Bitcoin is simply still far too young for that :)
••
profile image
Charmin@Charmin
4Mon
@stefan_21 Basically, I don't really understand the whole discussion anyway: some people think it's great, others don't. It feels like every other share.

Everyone has to know for themselves. Not everyone comes to the same conclusions. And my conclusion is this: Don't gamble. Better to have fun in the casino.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Charmin Also a legitimate point of view :)
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@Charmin The price on the Bitcoin is actually irrelevant for the actual function. Which is why you don't need to have a Fomo if everyone uses Bitcoin at some point. The only important thing for bartering is that the transfer unit remains stable on a daily basis. Of course, a stable coin is better suited for this, but they are never the yellow of the egg (someone somewhere wants to make a profit).
Otherwise, as a consumer, I think the actual idea of irreversible payment transactions is a load of crap.
••
profile image
Fabio Fontanelli@Fontaene
4Mon
Top
•
1
•
profile image
Kate💎 🙌.@Iwanowitsch
4Mon
I can't believe how seriously you take Harald. I wouldn't have expected such a serious contribution from him after reading the original discussion. Your contribution is of course, as always, very informative and interesting.
•
1
•
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Iwanowitsch Hi Kate,
Thank you :) yes, no one could have expected Harald's post😂 and I thought to myself that I can't just ignore it and have to write a rebuttal. Who would have thought what your post about Rieck would trigger😂
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
Hello Stefan,

this time as a comment, because it's too complicated for me to summarize this in a separate post.

Re 1(necessity of a constantly growing circle of participants)
Well, that contradicts the actual purpose of Bitcoin. Of course, the payment system or network can be maintained, but if no one buys your transfer units and thus carries out the actual trade, Bitcoin smoulders in its own soup and is unsuitable as a means of transfer. Putin needs roubles, not a coin he can't do anything else with. Don't forget, the trading partner actually wants money in exchange for its goods. As miners also produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for this, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they were not accepted, Bitcoin would fail to fulfill its transfer property and lose trust. As I said, Bitcoin is somehow trying to prevent the loss of trust with the "you make a profit by holding" method. You can compensate for this with a higher number of hodlers, but this is not done to remove transfer units from the system out of charity, but to exchange more money later (where someone new is then needed to pay for it). You can actually only counter this by explaining how you directly generate value by holding Bitcoin (and then directly contradicting the explanation that Satoshi cannot enrich himself by not moving the coins. Good luck

Re (2) Profits
Market movement, yes, there are also some who realize against loss and some at the level that buy in again. That is also in the definition. There is buying at all levels. And no, profits for each asset does not necessarily come from another buyer. Stocks are companies that make profits and also buy back shares, etc. Again, you are confusing that stocks represent value (namely a share in a company that has value), which is not the case with Bitcoin). As usual, that's why I singled out Bitcoin as a non-product. Unless you want to say that companies don't make money (and thus my share becomes more valuable even without a buyer)

Re 3(Missing product)
Well, as linked in the white paper, Bitcoin was meant for something specific and completely missed the mark. Storing value sounds nice now, but where does Bitcoin hold value? As usual, you're confusing value with price and it's really just an attempt to find repeat users who are greedier. This shift towards the "yield miracle bag" makes Bitcoin even more of an empty product, especially since no one can explain how and why Bitcoin creates value. Because you don't gain any by transferring it.
Re 1(incentive)
Of course there is a distribution structure. That is you. And yes, your incentive is to find someone who will buy the coin from you for more than you made, bought or exchanged it for. What else could it be? Otherwise, again, Bitcoin has zero use if you just want to hold it for all eternity. Bitcoin is the transfer unit, so you have to exchange it again at some point.

Re 2(Payments)
The strangest counter. Of course, you benefit directly if you find new participants who pay more and continue to rate. Especially if you can exchange cheap coins for the current "price". Are you saying that Satoshi doesn't profit with coins in the cent range if he finds someone who buys them for 70k? It doesn't matter whether the money comes directly from new users or goes to you as a bonus.

To (3)
It would have been nice if you had read it. The unmoved ones are assigned to Satoshi, which is correct. Doesn't mean he didn't have more. To call the genesis block with 50 bitcoins with 1 million coins that he has "honesty" is grandiose. The fact is that, as the inventor, he has incorporated the cheapest coins for himself and still has 1/20 of all coins. How the top level receives its product (because even a ping pong ball as a transfer unit has to be made in the end) is completely irrelevant for a pyramid scheme yes/no, as long as the top level has received the "product" more cheaply than the following users. That is the case. To say Satoshi has not enriched himself, even though he is how many billions heavier, can only be a bad joke. Or coping.

Re (4)
No bonus, but a more expensive product. As with an MLM, all sales units would be confronted with the same price range, no hierarchy. Snowballing also works if each level sells the product at a higher price. I had written the same thing....

To (5)
A Ponzi scheme would also be a Ponzi scheme before the collapse. Sorry.
Sorry, as in the articles I linked to, your reasoning deals fairly well with Ponzi for the most part, whereas Bitcoin is more likely to be a Ponzi scheme. The central authority would be important in a Ponzi, not a pyramid scheme. That you can't centrally access an authority is a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, not a criterion for exclusion.

And no, as explained, Bitcoin is failing in its actual task, as it has degenerated into a pure speculative object. The fact that you hold your coins is exactly what it shouldn't be.

Kind regards
Harald
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566
Well, to (1) - the original purpose of Bitcoin is completely irrelevant. Bitcoin is a free protocol that has been further developed by many people. Bitcoin is what people make of it. If one of the participants - be it Putin - does not want Bitcoin for his goods, there will be no trade. Just like if he doesn't want euros. But if people produce something and want Bitcoin, a trade can very well come about.
Re:
"As additional miners produce more Bitcoin every day and have the ongoing costs for it, they also have to exchange. Nobody can finance electricity or a GPU with Bitcoins. You either need people to hold the Bitcoin, and more every day as more Bitcoins are added. If they weren't accepted, Bitcoin would lose its transfer properties and lose trust."

I agree with you, but not completely. As I said, the miner is a service provider. If people no longer attributed any value to Bitcoin and no one could use Bitcoin to pay for the electricity that has to be used, then no one would mine it anymore. In this case, Bitcoin would have failed. However, as long as there are people who attribute value to Bitcoin and want something from it, this is not the case and the network regulates itself accordingly.
A Ponzi scheme would collapse without a constant influx of new members. This is not the case with Bitcoin. If the difficulty adjustment in mining did not exist, I would completely agree with you.

Re (2)
The share price is the result of supply and demand. The company behind it generates profits, that's correct - which is why the share price is far from reflecting the "intrinsic value" of the company. The more demand there is and the more buyers come in, the more my share will be worth.

Re (3)
Well, as explained, people assign a value to things. Also on the basis of characteristics. Just as we ascribe a value to gold that is far higher than its industrial use. And again: Bitcoin doesn't have to be what the white paper says it is. Satoshi has relinquished control and the network continues to evolve. But at a fundamental level, it is still just that: a P2P cash system. I can transact trustlessly without a third party.
Since you don't see a use case in Bitcoin, Bitcoin has no value for you. As described, value is subjective.
For me and other people, it has a real use and therefore also a value. And no, there is no distribution structure. It is completely normal for people to talk about something when they are enthusiastic about it. If I buy a kebab and am enthusiastic about it - and tell others about it, then that doesn't make me a sales representative of the kebab store :)

Re 2 (payments)
Of course Satoshi would benefit if he sold coins. But he also took a much higher risk than I did, for example. It was not foreseeable at the beginning that Bitcoin would become something.
Early gold investors also profited more than late investors. Early NVIDIA, Apple investors and the like did the same.
But the thing is: the newbies' money doesn't go to the earlier investors like in a Ponzi scheme. Instead, the price rises and falls based on supply and demand. There is no one who distributes money centrally.

Re(3)
Don't worry, I've read it. But the fact that he bought the cheapest coins is factually incorrect. He only mined together with others, which is why he did not profit more than these other early participants. And as I said, your assertion that he has enriched himself remains an assertion.
I don't even know what your problem is in this regard. He took an extremely high risk and was rewarded for it. Just like an entrepreneur is rewarded for founding a successful company and holding the most shares. However, you cannot accuse Satoshi of intending to enrich himself, as you cannot prove that he sold coins. And even if he were to sell coins at some point, Bitcoin would still not be a Ponzi scheme because the other points do not apply either. The founder's intention to enrich himself is not even a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme - even if it is of course a conclusion.

Re (4)
Nobody has to buy someone else's "product" at a higher price. After all, enough people have already sold their "product" at a loss. Why? Because Bitcoin is traded openly on the market.

Re (5)
As written, the network adapts dynamically to the number of users and miners. No exponential user growth is required, which is why this does not apply to Bitcoin either.

Thank you again for your contribution. I'm glad that we were able to have a constructive discussion at eye level after all - even if the topic is getting on my nerves by now😂 but you have to get through it. At least now people here can form their own opinions
•
3
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Hello Stefan, I'm sorry that the topic is getting on your nerves. It happens when you have to deal with it and, I have the feeling, you have to bend a lot for your argumentation. I think you're going sideways anyway. It was important to me whether the actual system was a Ponzi scheme, that was my task.

Whether you have now found a user case, which I still doubt, does not detract from that.

Regarding your first point: The only thing that is important for the assessment of a pyramid scheme is whether there is a real product. The fact that the next levels have come up with a new function with their inherently worthless transfer units makes it at best an initial pyramid scheme that the users have modified.
The point about miners is also slightly wrong. For the western world, the electricity price for mining is already higher than the trading price of Bitcoin. This is where the idea of making a profit in the long term by holding (aka finding an exchange partner) comes into play again. This is exactly where I say the actual purpose of Bitcoin that was propagated has failed or was a failure from the outset. That this is their problem, of course. Anyone who gets bounced in a scheme is to blame themselves. No question about it.

On your second point: slightly wrong. But that's not the point. In fact, a traded company share is a product. A product that can create value. This is not the case with Bitcoin, especially since you repeatedly fail to explain how Bitcoin creates value. If you don't address the points at all, we're just passing the ball back and forth. And yes, an MLM and pyramid scheme thrives on the lower levels getting excited and selling the product. Maybe you should read up on a pyramid scheme before you try to use evidence for a pyramid scheme/MLM as a counter-argument. As usual, this is also the case with the great articles and fails to recognize what a pyramid scheme actually is. You are the distribution partner of all those who hold cheap bitcoins and make yourself the beadle. Just like in any Ponzi scheme. You can call that enthusiasm if you like...

Thirdly, in a Ponzi scheme, value is also attributed to a worthless product.

Secondly: Irrelevant and wrong. The first exchange rate on the first trading platforms was 0.08 cents per Bitcoin. The first million were actually already through in 2009. So Satoshi's maximum risk was 80000 euros. What a risk against today's valuation of over 60 billion. Don't you feel funny yourself when you make statements like that? And enriching the founder is not a characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. Ok, interesting opinion on your part.

Regarding (5) For the assessment of Ponzi scheme yes/no, what happens today is completely irrelevant.

Best regards
Harald
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Well, I put every characteristic of a Ponzi scheme on Bitcoin in the post and then argued accordingly why that doesn't fit. I don't know where I would go sideways.
The actual system, see my post, is not a Ponzi scheme because it doesn't fulfill the core elements or the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.
Now people here have two opinions and can decide for themselves what they think. It's clear that you and I are no longer on the same page on this topic. If you like, I can address your other points later, but unfortunately I don't have time now.

Regards zurück🙋‍♂️
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Well... if you write it's not one because you're just enthusiastic and advertise it, you've just done the exact opposite. You have proven that Bitcoin fulfills a core aspect of the Ponzi scheme. I just wanted to point out that your counterargument fits the scheme perfectly. And yes, I also think 80,000 euros max is an enormous risk for 1 million Bitcoin. That's almost a whole Bitcoin today. I tremble at this willingness to take risks. But you're right, I think everything has been said for now. It's also quite interesting to think about it and formulate your thoughts.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 There is a big difference between bringing people closer to a topic out of enthusiasm and trying to push something on people because you profit from it yourself through commissions or similar :)
•
4
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Won't you profit if you sell your bitcoins for more money at some point?

Again: Since it is only a transfer unit, you have to sell the Bitcoin at some point. Or hope that it becomes a global currency. But then you also exchange it for something else at some point. A coffee, for example. If you simply keep the Bitcoin now, you won't get anything out of it.

My point was that all the crypto enthusiasts are just fulfilling a point in the Ponzi scheme with their enthusiasm. MLM people are also always very enthusiastic when they want to sell you something.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Does the Gold Bug profit from presenting gold as better money and then selling it later at a higher price? Yes.
Does he profit because he has explained the advantages of gold? No.

I don't have to do anything at first.
It's my individual decision whether I buy, sell or hold Bitcoin.

I don't have to hope/wait for it to become a global currency either. It's enough if I find another trading partner who wants Bitcoin. I don't care what they do with it. That is his individual decision.
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Gold has an intrinsic value and a use. Precious metal, jewelry. Industry. In its function and given its non-artificial rarity, the price is perfectly OK and actually only rises with inflation. Otherwise gold would have to be somewhere else. What's more, the inventor of gold who pocketed all the gold beforehand is still missing here. Apples and oranges.

Again, and I honestly don't know why you're being so evasive: will you profit if you exchange Bitcoin for a currency again at some point? That's a simple yes/no question where you don't actually have to bend...
The trading partner who takes Bitcoin off your hands. Correct! The money doesn't magically appear. That means you need someone to buy it from you. So why do you deny that you have to look for a subsequent user?

Best regards
Harald
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 However, the "subsequent user" does not have to be a new person that you have to acquire, otherwise Bitcoin will collapse. If you want to spend Bitcoin, you have to find someone who wants it. It's the same with euros, by the way.

You can take my first two sentences as an answer to your question. I used gold as an example because it would be 1:1 the same.
But you can also apply that to any share
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Nope. I answered you what the difference is. You can't equate a transfer unit that doesn't generate value with a company share or a rare metal.

Your trading partner is the new user of the product. Whether he is recruited from the level or is new is irrelevant when valuing snow.
••
View all 4 further answers
profile image
gerdgue@gerdgue
4Mon
Certainly not a Ponzi scheme for the reasons mentioned. But it is and remains a hype with a rather immaterial value, which is mainly driven by the hyped demand and, in my opinion, by fantasies of a possible primordial democratic so-called internet currency, which unfortunately will not happen.

In the worst case scenario for the big bitcoin believers, the value will disappear just as quickly as with the Lazy Ape NFTs etc., which were also all very hyped and in the end you end up with 0$ with your bitcoins.

In the next major crisis at the latest, bitcoin will be the first to collapse, and much worse than anything else, because people will pull their money out again.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@gerdgue Thank you for your comment. I disagree - but that will hardly surprise you 😁
You can't really put NFTs and Bitcoin on the same level in that respect.
We'll see what the future brings :)
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 The same has been said about Nfts as you are currently reporting on Bitcoin.
E.G.
https://www.avax.network/how-nft-valuations-are-determined

Close. Function. Network. Great inventor. Demand. Exchangeability. Get in now because it's the future.
Just because we now know how it collapsed, the future hypes were nothing else. Today, nobody wants to admit it anymore. Especially not the bagholders

It's all the same.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Hi Harald,
I'm not interested in what a few shitcoin dupes have said about NFTs. I've always pointed out from the beginning of the hype that NFTs are absolute cheese with no use case.
•
1
•
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Doesn't change the fact that the same has been said about Nfts as you are now saying about Bitcoin. . And the transferability first. Blockchain, even with functions. User numbers. Acceptance. The next money. Steampunk. What a use case. So many things you can do later. Give the Nfts a few more years. It's still brand new.

Everything is the same.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 No, Harald, it's not the same.
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 Are you keeping your fingers crossed? Of course it's the same and it was advertised the same. The same magic words with no real explanation why an ugly frog should cost 2 million. But blockchain. New money. Value. Except it wasn't a numerical code but a link to an image. A digital scrap of paper that can be transferred. Get in now or all the pretty picture links will be gone.

It was just as hilarious as it is now
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Yes, that's exactly how it is. I keep my fingers crossed every day that Bitcoin doesn't fall to 0. In the meantime, I spend my time looking for new users🤓
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 That's exactly how nftler talked. Yup.

Stay poor. If you don't own a monkey later, you'll be left behind. Buy now
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
4Mon
@Madhatter5566 Why can't you just let it go? If you are so convinced of your views, you should be able to sleep peacefully and enjoy the thought that Bitcoin will soon have to fall to 0. Why do you want to talk to me day after day?
••
Harald@Madhatter5566
4Mon
@stefan_21 I'm just amused that your arguments could all be paraphrased to NFT a few years ago. One to one. That has a comedy of its own.
The next big thing :)

But let's give it a rest. The cognitive dissonance is too great. I'm sorry.
••
View all 15 further answers
profile image
SquirtGame@SquirtGame
3Mon
It doesn't matter, I have no intention of taking the BTC to my grave.
••
profile image
Stefan21@stefan_21
3Mon
@SquirtGame I do😁
••
Join the conversation
Sign upLogin