Hacker News Reader

Comment by xqk8 | Hacker News Reader

It certainly doesn't largely refer to that. It requires a central actor to defraud new investors, promise investors returns that haven't actually been realized, channel their money to pay off the old ones. If you read up on why it's named a Ponzi scheme you can understand how they work.

View on HN

> It requires a central actor

I see exactly zero existing definitions of ”ponzi scheme” that mentions any "central actor" so you seem to be creating an entirely new definition purely to avoid the "ponzi scheme" label.

Then you didn't look at wikipedia which mentions "the con artist" and "the operator of the scheme" several times.

If you're having to google the definition of the term maybe there's still a little more you need to learn about it.

I don't see either of those as at all synonymous with "central actor".

I would consider all the founders and early investors who knowingly promote the ponzi scheme as con artists.

I google the definition to charitably give your argument the benefit of the doubt. I don't see how you think phrases like the following make for effective communication or a strong argument:

> If you're having to google the definition of the term maybe there's still a little more you need to learn about it.

Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

Either:

    1. I'm trying to dodge the label "Ponzi scheme" for a reason you haven't provided (maybe you think I have millions invested in this shitcoin?)
    2. This isn't a Ponzi scheme, and you don't know what a Ponzi scheme is

Which explanation is simpler?

> Why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

There can be multiple operators.

I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.

Your argument is akin to claiming that a three legged dog is not a dog because dogs have four legs.

I wouldn't be so uncharitable as to presume to know why you have chosen to make this argument.

I think your argument would be clearer if you took a step back and explained why you think that "central actor" is such a critical part of the meaning of "ponzi scheme" rather than a incidental feature common to ponzi schemes.

So why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

>I see zero good reasons why decentralized schemes can't be ponzi schemes.

Do you know who Charles Ponzi was or why Ponzi schemes are named after him?

Do you know what he did or what Bernie Madoff did? They operated the Ponzi scheme. That's why they were a critical part.

This money really was going into the smart contract, wasn't directly given to old investors, wasn't being siphoned directly into the operator's pocket, all unlike a Ponzi.

You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it.

> $272 million worth of USDC is still locked up in in the contract. Why hasn’t everyone recovered their 74 cents?

Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.

You should work harder on understanding what other people are saying. I've tried to give you the benefit of the doubt several times but your tone keeps getting worse.

> Why didn't the masterminds behind this scheme walk away with that cash? Because it was a mistake. Not a genius scheme being run in the shadows.

Please fet your basic facts right. Nobody in this thread is accusing IRON of being a ponzi scheme. IRON was a partially collaterized stablecoin. The quote about how non-collateralized stable coins require constant growth is from the founders of IRON explaining why they made IRON collaterized.

> So why isn't "the operator of the scheme" synonymous with "the central actor?"

Already explained in my last comment.

> You don't know what a Ponzi is and you're trying to save face, I get it

If you really thought you had an argument, you wouldn't feel the need to descend to this level.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com