Previously Ponzi schemes were limited in geographic area, so you'd be limited to the number of marks you could go after, either through travel limits or the number of people you could meet through 'friends of friends'. This could grow a bit if you were 'successful' enough and could establish a reputation (e.g., Madoff).
Online schemes do not have geographic limits and so there's always a fresh source of unknowledgeable persons to go after.
Further, most traditional Ponzi schemes are of the form that you'll receive x% returns (e.g., dividends) per year, but Crypto is more akin to:
> In finance and economics, the greater fool theory states that the price of an asset is determined by whether you can sell it for a higher price, at a later point in time. On assets where the theory applies, it is implied that the asset's intrinsic value is less important than the increase in demand, however irrational it might be. The person buying the overpriced asset later on, for a higher price, is deemed the greater fool.[1][2][3][4]
People used to believe that conquests made wealth; gradually they became convinced that productivity made wealth. Productivity is now on the chopping block, since it is seen as something that's killing the planet with inexhaustible resource demand. We're looking for the next way of seeing things. Crypto doesn't make sense now, and I say that as someone deeply invested in it, but it has that kind of potential to change our frame of reference after an awkward transition takes place. Maybe it makes sense if we go further with it. The experiment is in progress, but it's already exceeded the usual bounds of a cult or scam.
It is fundamentally negative sum, and the narrative of prosperity is driven by existing holders to attempt to claim a larger stake of fiat.
Concretely it would be like treating gold as a productive asset because InteractiveBrokers lets you take out a margin loan collateralized by your gold. Gold remains unproductive in this scenario, IBKR shares would productive. Value from lending would accrue to IBKR shares.
What does "productive" mean? If something has somekind of value/property that is useful somehow, then isn't this "productive" in the sense that it produces that value?
"The scheme leads victims to believe that profits are coming from legitimate business activity, and they remain unaware that other investors are the source of funds"
I believe this holds as I don't think most of the investors understand crypto. It is a magic black box so they don't know where the value comes from.
Bitcoin failed as a general currency but apparently banks are using it to settle accounts amongst themselves. Sometimes things develop in the most unintuitive ways.
> I believe this holds as I don't think most of the investors understand crypto. It is a magic black box so they don't know where the value comes from.
I don't think this is evidence of any scheme. It's just irrational market behavior.
It isn't really an economic problem, it is more like a poker game.
The next market crash will probably be from a substantially higher peak and will take proportionately more to bail it out, and it is also going to be complicated by governments taking the opportunity to crack down on it so "regulatory risk" will be very high. 2022/2023 are probably going to have a high risk of the game collapsing.
Won't be 100% though so it could come back and another ~4 years from now we could be seeing yet another bubble blowing up in crypto. I wouldn't get too emotionally attached to hating crypto or believing that a sudden regulatory attack on crypto is going to manage to pop crypto in the near term (and what China did recently was the kind of crackdown that everyone believed would kill it, but its dragging itself out of the hole again).
Right now chances of it popping in the short term are probably very low, and nobody is going to seriously take a run at regulating it because they don't want to be responsible for the fallout (similarly to how nobody did shit about Madoff's Ponzi until he went cash insolvent in 2008 due to the financial crisis).
It's of course risky, but cruptocurrencies can be a perfectly valid source of money, as long as you just risk spare money. You don't need to trust it to be a valid investment, you just need to trust that enough people will believe it is.
This is called the greater fool theory.
But noon-techies i know bought an experiment with it and i was kinda suprised. I guess they are going for too big to fail.
A lot of "big money" had joined the crypto thing and it's making themv curious: "eg. all these big corporations can't be wrong".
I don't blame that they try now though, although I warn them. It's really getting surreal.
Note : I left crypto behind me in late 2017 at 18 k. Didn't trust it anymore and nothing changed.
Some cryptocurrencies can survive a major net outflow, but some, especially the stablecoins with weak backing, (i.e. Tether) cannot.
The big lesson of cryptocurrencies is that the market for money laundering services is much larger than previously supposed.
https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages...
> Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything
Fundamentally it's not really any better than cryptocurrencies. We can't easily transact with cryptocurrencies due to cultural reasons. We have coins right now that can be used to transact with complete privacy. People don't do it because culture is slow to change.
Worst case for cryptocurrencies is the whole Tether thing implodes. Not sure it ever will but hey, if the US government will bail out banks when they screw everything up, why not Tether as well?
No matter what you have - the Mona Lisa, gold bars, the hope diamond - they will not accept it. You must sell it to buy dollars.
That is not a coincidence - it is the entire point … and it means there will always be buyers for dollars and they will always have value.
You can't ignore the IRS - you will have to pay taxes. Those taxes must be paid in US dollars.
The US dollar has lost
- ~30% of its value in the last 10 years
- ~84% of its value in the last 50 years
- ~97% of its value since 1900
(Value here refers to purchasing power)
Reason for this is that the US dollar is continually being inflated by the US government, precisely because it has no robust backing.
Like all currencies before it, its value will diminish over time. When the US ceases to exist, its value will finally become zero. Precisely because tax payments were the only thing keeping it relevant.