A Ponzi scheme has a specific definition. Despite what HN seems to think, it is not shorthand for "crypto thing I don't like/understand".
Here's the common definition of a Ponzi scheme. While people can debate whether any specific coin or nft built on etherium is a Ponzi scheme, it'd be hard to argue that there aren't plenty of examples.
Etherium makes it easy to spin up a new "coin" or token, the article is a prime example.
Surely that wouldn't destroy the value of famous originals? Because their value is based on provenance, not the physical difficulty of (re)creation. NFTs are the same - replicating a JPEG is trivial, but the replica won't have the same provenance.
You can just say you don't understand the appeal, that is a perfectly valid opinion.
> Many Ponzi schemes share common characteristics. Look for these warning signs:
> High returns with little or no risk.
Some new shit coins and many NFT projects absolutely make these bullshit claims, but it's well, well known that there's risk by speculating in crypto at this point. We've all seen multiple 80% drops in bitcoin's price (or you can with a simple look at the 5-10 year chart). It's no secret. People speculate in it anyway for other reasons.
> Overly consistent returns. Investments tend to go up and down over time. Be skeptical about an investment that regularly generates positive returns regardless of overall market conditions.
Except for maybe stablecoins (which we found out this past year aren't exactly stable), no crypto coin can claim to have consistent returns.
> Unregistered investments. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that are not registered with the SEC or with state regulators.
This part is true for many crypto coins, and the SEC is going after them now. Bitcoin itself seems to be immune to this by having no centralized component to it, which is unlike most other coins.
> Unlicensed sellers. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and firms to be licensed or registered.
Most exchanges are either licensed and registered if they operate in the US, hence their KYC measures.
> Secretive, complex strategies.
Yeah, some algorithmic stablecoins are like this (at least the complex part), and you've seen most of them collapse at this point. The rest are pretty simple coins for the most part, and many of them have completely open source code, so there's nothing secretive about it at all.
> Issues with paperwork. Account statement errors may be a sign that funds are not being invested as promised.
You can't really have an account statement error on the blockchain outside of a 51% attack (which is arguably not an error, just creating a new consensus), although some of the companies that have sprung up around it add obfuscation that can lead to possible account errors. Banks can have account errors as well, though.
> Difficulty receiving payments. Be suspicious if you don’t receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out.
This one can happen at exchanges, but the blockchains themselves still work and you can transfer with others directly, assuming you have taken your crypto off of exchanges ("Not your keys, not your crypto" as the saying goes).
[1]: https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type...
Unfortunately cryptocurrency and NFTs fit exactly the definition of a Ponzi scheme and it's quite easy to see why:
> Pon·zi scheme
> noun
> a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a nonexistent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
Literally the entire basis of deflationary speculative "currency" is a Ponzi scheme. It has no value if new people don't buy in.
What is the enterprise? Cryptocurrencies themselves have no governance or accountability. They don't have any responsibility to continue to exist beyond the efforts of the participants that are propping them up. This is evidenced by the massive number of rug-pulls that constantly happen in crypto.
> is a statement that evaluates to true for any currency ever minted.
Except not really. Let's talk about USD. If there were no new participants introduced to United States currency at this point it doesn't become valueless because it is not a deflationary speculative currency. It exists as an agreed upon representation of value, it doesn't need to continue to consume new participants to justify its valuation, or continue to exist.
Let me ask you, is there a good or common reason to buy etherium today besides hoping that it increases in value? How would it increase in value if no new people were introduced to the system? How does crypto justify its existence in any way beyond convincing the next biggest sucker to buy in? Bonus points if you don't mention stocks.
A classic use case is engaging in commerce (whether it's with ETH, DAI, USDC, etc), without needing to trust a middleman like PayPal to not freeze or steal your funds. For this one needs ETH to pay gas.
Common: The middleman is still there in the most common case since most wallets are custodial. There are a ton of recent examples of exchanges freezing accounts, including the very article that we're commenting under, so I don't really get what you're talking about.
Good: It doesn't make sense to use a wildly volatile deflationary token as currency. Deflation discourages spending which is why there is no real currency that restricts the supply of money to a fixed amount, because it encourages hoarding.
I wouldn't argue that everyone should self-custody. If many users have access to convenient custodians who they can trust not to steal their funds, that's great; it's just that not everyone does.
I don't really have a stance on Eth's monetary policy, I was just trying to address your point about a use case.