The expected return to entrants, over all entries through its collapse, is likely even better than lotteries.
At least this isn't advertising on TV and YouTube to attract even more vulnerable and unsophisticated players!
What activities do you think I don't like?
Are they really dumb? Is the guy in the middle of the scheme who makes out with a profit dumb? There's known risk - some will decide they'll risk it. It may not be wise (I wouldn't participate, myself), but I wouldn't be so bold as to assume they're dumb.
> But those who participate are still morally complicit.
Who are these morally complicit participants if not the "obviously dumb" persons whom you just described? Are they victims with "serious issues" or are they morally corrupt enablers?
You may mean that the morally-corrupt-enabler(s) are whomever set this up, but that's not really what's suggested by such a broad phrase as "those who participate".
You are right, there is a distinction to be made between those who created the site, and those throw money at it.
Some who throw money at the site are well off and are essentially using the scheme as entertainment. They likely would not be too upset if the money didn't come back. One could make the argument that these people are morally entangled to a degree, as they increase the volume of funds flowing through the site, which draws in additional people, and makes it more likely that someone who actually has financial or gambling problems is tempted to bet on the site. However, this is argument is somewhat weaker than the one against the actual creators of the scheme.
The site wasn't created for the purpose of hooking in gambling addicts, so I see no problem with it. Also, you have no evidence that an explicit bitcoin ponzi scheme draws in gamblers who put in more money than they can afford to lose.
And you are right, I don't have any hard data or evidence off the top my head. I have read many accounts about gambling in general though. It can be quite insidious. Putting money into the scheme from the OP is virtually the same thing as gambling. If the site actually ran for any decent length of time, I think it is extremely likely that some people who are struggling financially would have made bets on this site that they would then later regret. I also doubt you have evidence that implies otherwise ;)
Personally, I think that facilitating such events is morally dubious. I understand that not everyone shares this view.