Sure, I understand that people fall for them, and there is a gray zone between commonplace returns and what-sort-of-idiot-do-you-take-me-for returns where I can see myself falling for such a scam as well. What baffles me is people who
still believe that BTCST wasn't a ponzi. Some of them even appear to have accepted that they will never see a single satoshi, yet they come up with alternative explanations of what could have gone wrong. These are usually accompanied by the statement that no-one can prove that it was a ponzi.
Now, I am not asking for proof that it
wasn't a ponzi. I am just asking for evidence. Any single scrap of evidence, however circumstantial. Is there
any reason to believe that it was not a ponzi? Is there a single aspect of the scheme or of Pirate's behaviour which is atypical for a ponzi? Or is all of this wishful thinking (even from people who were allegedly not invested in BTCST)?
You assume people operate like computers and process inputs, use logic and always reach valid conclusions. People pour their hopes, dreams, reputation, and emotions into scams and that is hard to "unwind".
There were victims of Madoffs who YEARS after he was arrested believed it was all some misunderstanding or clerical issue. Some thought it was some govt conspiracy to take Madoff down and their funds were simply collateral damage. All kinds of fantastical (and highly implausible) conspiracy theories. There are people still TODAY asking where is the money. Even when explained that the incoming money was paying out prior investors for decades (and a nice cut skimmed off the top by Madoff) they hold out hope that the money still "exists". While they can comprehend that Madoff was a theif/scam artist they still cling to the paper totals and can't accept that there is not some hidden bank account somewhere with all the money.
As to your direct question. A bunch of reasons:
1) Some as simply in
denial. If the believe it wasn't a ponzi they will get repaid and have the last laugh
2) Some accept they will never get the money but wont admit it is a ponzi because they will
look stupid. So as long as they "demand proof it is a ponzi" well then they can win some kind of stalemate on the level of "nobody will ever really knows if it was a ponzi or not".
3) Some are
criminally complicit. They knew it was a ponzi and encouraged others so they could profit off it. They will NEVER admit it was a ponzi. Hell if Pirate said it was a ponzi they would still admit they didn't know and come up with fantastical stories on how it *could* have been a non-ponzi.
4) Some simply
want to be right. The ponzi vs ponzi "forum war" was divisive. Some people just want/need to be right even when they ended up on the losing side.
You will never have 100% of people admit something even when it is obviously true. Hell there are people who won't accept that the Holocaust ever happened. There are mass graves, stories told by millions of survivors, documents, news reports, the actual concentration camps still existing and some people STILL (and NEVER will) believe it happened. There will be far less direct and physical evidence of Pirate's crimes.
