For some reason calling out "it's not achshually a Ponzi scheme!" is the new "correlation is not causation!!"

Yes, I agree with you, it doesn't have the features of the Wikipedia definition of a Ponzi scheme. But language changes over time. I think the salient point that people now think about when calling things a Ponzi scheme is "Early investors are aware that, at its root, the investment sucks. So their goal is to entice new investors to buy into the original investment, which has the effect of transferring wealth from new to old investors, with the hope that the old investors can get out before the gig is up, thus leaving the newer investors as bag holders." That description applies both to the original definition of a Ponzi scheme, and to newer uses that don't include other features of the original Ponzi scheme.

But the point here is that SPAC as an investment vehicle allows sidestepping a bunch of due diligence in the name of 'just avoiding wallstreet commissions'. that basically ends up becoming prime target for any non-IPO-worthy-but-shiny security to be offloaded to general public. then the next argument from same folks will be .. well price of anything is what somebody will pay for it, so buyer beware.

This is true. However, much like "crackers" are always looking for the next exploit ... chasing that dragon of the next n00b who doesn't sanitize strings passed to their DB, or, above that rather script kiddie level, oh, say, something like infecting all the computers in Iran related to running centrifuges to enrich uranium ... there are various kinds of economic fraudsters looking for that next way to extract piles of money into their own personal "Scrooge McDuck"-style "money bins". And, Silicon Valley has been ground-zero of this sort of activity* in recent years as well.

But, IPOs became rather passé post-2010ish, for the truly depraved. Too much regulation, you see. SPACs are ever so much more exploitable. Though, IPOs continue to be successfully used to funnel money from the have-nots to the already-haves.** And so, here we are.

Yes, there have been people legitimately trying to use SPACs to finance efforts they truly believed in. My sense, having traded SPACs myself during the height of the frenzy was: much less than 50% had much of any real legitimacy. And, solidly more than 10% or even 20% were scammy as hell ... particularly at that time when the money taps were wide open and fraud was absolutely rife across many vehicles etc. (helped along by ... survey says: the very "internet" Silicon Valley made such a massive economic force...).

* On a much larger scale and with a much more "legitimate face" than some of the other "operators" better known in this area, generally

** See, for example: https://www.businessinsider.com/venture-capital-big-tech-ant... ... I'd provide more refs in general, but sadly, super pressed for time right now ... so, obviously, I would advise anyone to take what I've written without solid refs with the usual grain of salt. Plenty can be found with some searches (quite neutral searches ... i.e., no "leading the search engine" required).