If something like bitcoin was getting exactly enough users to counteract generation, the goal would be something like "eventually we'll triple the userbase!" or "eventually we'll add 25% to the userbase!" which is stupendously far from a pyramid scheme's infinite exponential growth.
Once a coin is mature, the amount of user growth to match or even beat inflation on the dollar is... zero.
So what you're left with is "rewards early adopters" and "makes new subunits" and that... is a pretty ordinary startup.
Bitcoin has a lot of problems but a need for a constant flow of new users isn't one of them.
-
From the other comment thread: "I used the term "at the top" to allude to the original point about what geometric shape a reasonable person would be likely to use to pictorially represent such a scheme."
Nah. You have early adopters, and you have everyone else. The early price is super cheap, and the later price is based on demand. The best analogy is baseball cards.
> 'what you're left with is "rewards early adopters" and "makes new subunits" and that... is a pretty ordinary startup.'
While you could argue that a startup and a ponzi scheme can be considered similar because they both benefit earlier investors/members more than later ones, I'd argue that they are fundamentally different due to both the intention and the method - (i) the intention of a startup is extrinsic, i.e. it is to provide a real product or service based on a genuine or perceived customer need, while the intention of a ponzi scheme is intrinsic, i.e. it is solely a money making scheme with no product or service outside of the scheme, and (ii) the method of the startup is such that it will typically try to benefit most or all investors and customers to a greater or lesser degree, while the method of a ponzi scheme is such that it will benefit the earlier members at the expense of the later members (necessarily because nothing exists outside of the scheme).
The critical part of a ponzi scheme is using new investment to pay interest on old investors.
Something that you can model as a collectible doesn't do this. No matter how many promises of revolution you attach, it's still a commodity where you can buy and sell units based on supply and demand, and everyone profits or loses based on where the price goes. And they're generally aimed at a perceived customer need, at least.
For an honest believer, the value of their coins remaining stable is fine, they just want to be able to purchase things easily with them and/or do smart contract stuff.
The word 'scam' is appropriate for some coins. The words 'ponzi' or 'pyramid' are very rarely appropriate.
On a side note, the smart contracts set up to do a ponzi were interesting. It turns it into straightforward gambling, without the risk of someone taking the money and running.
If something like bitcoin was getting exactly enough users to counteract generation, the goal would be something like "eventually we'll triple the userbase!" or "eventually we'll add 25% to the userbase!" which is stupendously far from a pyramid scheme's infinite exponential growth.
Once a coin is mature, the amount of user growth to match or even beat inflation on the dollar is... zero.
So what you're left with is "rewards early adopters" and "makes new subunits" and that... is a pretty ordinary startup.
Bitcoin has a lot of problems but a need for a constant flow of new users isn't one of them.
-
From the other comment thread: "I used the term "at the top" to allude to the original point about what geometric shape a reasonable person would be likely to use to pictorially represent such a scheme."
Nah. You have early adopters, and you have everyone else. The early price is super cheap, and the later price is based on demand. The best analogy is baseball cards.