Hacker News Reader

When people say something is a ponzi, they generally mean that they think it's deceptive, fraudulent, or otherwise unsavoury. They don't mean that it's literally the sort of scheme made infamous by Charles Ponzi.

I think there's value in using precise language, so I reget this usage, but it's common whether I like it or not.

View on HN

Most of the time I’ve seen something called a Ponzi scheme, there is at least some purported element where earlier investors in an asset make money off of later investors in the same asset, without the asset’s true worth actually increasing. That definition isn’t hard to satisfy – it could be something as simple as a stock price becoming overinflated due to hype – and it may even apply to SPACs, but it’s still a more specific requirement than just being fraudulent or unsavory. YMMV.

Earlier investors = VCs funding a bunk company.

Later investors = SPAC pawns putting up money for a bad investment that doesn't require the normal regulatory scrutiny that an IPO requires.

If not Ponzi, seems very Ponzi-like.

Then people should just use the correct term: Rug pull

Reply on news.ycombinator.com