> Every "permissionless transaction" is an action of supplying and demanding.
Of course it's not, it's simply a transaction; it doesn't need to be between two separate parties. I don't think you understand Bitcoin as well as you believe, you have it confused with an economic theory.
Reading "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" will do you good.
> then let people make their own decisions about what to do
As we see, they go to crowded places, unvaccinated, and spread the virus. I think that's irresponsible. Is that "ludicrous moralization and judgement?"
irresponsible to who? The other people that have made the same decision and accepted the risk? or the people who are vaccinated and have pretty close to zero risk?
Vaccine effectiveness is changing every day. In Israel they're seeing 16% efficacy 6 months after the 2nd Pfizer dose.
Also, benefits are only one half of the cost:benefit analysis. Where is the public data on side effects? It doesn't exist because all we have is completely unverified VAERS claims.
You can't make an informed decision when you only know half the equation.
A definition so broad it's meaningless. There was no Bernie Madoff here, no fraudulent scheme, just very poor design and outright mistakes.
What you're describing is what they tried (and failed) to avoid. How can you make it to the "I’m wondering if this can last mathematically?" part of this article and still think there's a mastermind behind all of this?
I don't see either of those as at all synonymous with "central actor".
I would consider all the founders and early investors who knowingly promote the ponzi scheme as con artists.
I google the definition to charitably give your argument the benefit of the doubt. I don't see how you think phrases like the following make for effective communication or a strong argument:
> If you're having to google the definition of the term maybe there's still a little more you need to learn about it.
Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"
Either:
1. I'm trying to dodge the label "Ponzi scheme" for a reason you haven't provided (maybe you think I have millions invested in this shitcoin?)
2. This isn't a Ponzi scheme, and you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is
> Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"
There can be multiple operators.
I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.
Your argument is akin to claiming that a three legged dog is not a dog because dogs have four legs.
I wouldn't be so uncharitable as to presume to know why you have chosen to make this argument.
I think your argument would be clearer if you took a step back and explained why you think that "central actor" is such a critical part of the meaning of "ponzi scheme" rather than a incidental feature common to ponzi schemes.
So why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"
>I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.
Do you know who Charles Ponzi was or why Ponzi schemes are named after him?
Do you know what he did or what Bernie Madoff did? They operated the Ponzi scheme. That's why they were a critical part.
This money really was going into the smart contract, wasn't directly given to old investors, wasn't being siphoned directly into the operator's pocket, all unlike a Ponzi.
You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it.
> $272 million worth of USDC is still locked up in in the contract. Why hasn’t everyone recovered their 74 cents?
Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.
You should work harder on understanding what other people are saying. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt several times but your tone keeps getting worse.
> Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.
Please fet your basic facts right. Nobody in this thread is accusing IRON of being a ponzi scheme. IRON was a partially collaterized stablecoin. The quote about how non-collateralized stable coins require constant growth is from the founders of IRON explaining why they made IRON collaterized.
> So why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"
Already explained in my last comment.
> You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it
If you really thought you had an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to descend to this level.
No, much different, in a Ponzi scheme you're fraudulently claiming that the high returns you're delivering your old investors are real, and result from your investing acumen, when in fact they aren't real, they're just money from new investors that was never invested in the first place.
This is more like if you bought a lot of dollar bills that were 75% backed by gold and %25 backed by Dogecoin. They are comparable in that both keep working as long as no one tries to cash out, and money keeps coming in.
No, much different, in a Ponzi scheme you're fraudulently claiming that the high returns you're delivering your old investors are real, and result from your investing acumen, when in fact they aren't real, they're just money from new investors that was never invested in the first place.
A Ponzi-scheme is a specific type of scam, it's not a generic word for any kind of unsustainable investment or scam.
This whole thread looks like someone saying "No, a boat is not a car" and the other going "but it does have an engine, right? It's a car. Let's not argue semantics"
To be charitable, I think it’s more likely that this is an entire area where regulation hasn’t caught up so we don’t have any common names available.
These coins are ponzi-like in that only the earliest of adopters have any chance and only if they know enough to get currency out without hitting an inflection point that brings down the whole thing. But that’s where the similarity ends - the mechanism is different, they don’t operate like a Bernie Madoff and they’re honest about the whole process.
This is something else and while it’s Ponzi-like, it’s a different beast. I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with expanding the definition of Ponzi scheme for now, just so we have something to educate some irrationally exuberant retail investors…
Of course it's not, it's simply a transaction; it doesn't need to be between two separate parties. I don't think you understand Bitcoin as well as you believe, you have it confused with an economic theory.
Reading "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" will do you good.