All Ponzi scheme start with seed money

[sandaq]

I do believe it is a stupid thing to purchase their shares instead of purchasing Bitcoin directly but they have their own share of customers just like ETFs.

To me, the main difference is that Strategy's model appears to promise investors returns regardless of how the market performs, whereas Bitcoin ETFs make no such promise. ETFs simply track the performance of the underlying asset. ETFs returns are determined entirely by the market, not by an expectation of returns independent of it.

[Odusko]

Why do you in the first place think Strategy would pull or is pulling a Ponzi? With them being a public US company it’s very extremely unlikely for that to happen…

I consider any scheme that pays investors using money derived from the investors' own capital, rather than from value created by providing a genuine product or service, to have the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.

In the essence you are calling Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme then r what are you saying, Bitcoin have an intrisic value which means you can only lose your Bitcoin when you exchange it or send it r another person from your own wallet, but such is not a characteristics in ponzi scheme because, with ponzi you are getting paid for zero value, jus like robbing Paul to pay petter,.

[sandaq]

Why do you in the first place think Strategy would pull or is pulling a Ponzi? With them being a public US company it’s very extremely unlikely for that to happen…

I consider any scheme that pays investors using money derived from the investors' own capital, rather than from value created by providing a genuine product or service, to have the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.

In the essence you are calling Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme then r what are you saying, Bitcoin have an intrisic value which means you can only lose your Bitcoin when you exchange it or send it r another person from your own wallet, but such is not a characteristics in ponzi scheme because, with ponzi you are getting paid for zero value, jus like robbing Paul to pay petter,.

No. 🙂

First of all, as I wrote earlier, I still don't know what to think about Bitcoin. For many years I viewed it as a kind of Ponzi scheme whose main distinguishing feature was decentralization. But as it has matured and seen broader adoption, I've become less certain of that view.

Today, I can also make the case that Bitcoin is an asset, much like gold. It's not physical, but it is digital, and it shares one important characteristic with gold: its value is ultimately determined by what people are willing to pay for it.

That said, there are important differences. If society were to collapse completely, I don't think Bitcoin would survive because it depends on digital infrastructure. Gold, on the other hand, would still exist as a physical asset. Conversely, if society continues to advance technologically, I believe Bitcoin has a good chance of continuing to thrive.

Gold has been recognized as a store of value for thousands of years, while Bitcoin has only existed for about 17 years. Then again, humanity has made more technological and economic progress in the last century than in the previous several thousand years combined. So perhaps Bitcoin doesn't need centuries to prove itself.

That's why, even after 17 years, I still don't have a definitive opinion on Bitcoin.

[lionheart78]

In my view, every Ponzi scheme starts with seed capital. Strategy had that seed capital and used it to buy Bitcoin (quite a lot of it).
It then built a strong reputation, completed an IPO (and later another capital raise), and attracted even more investor money.

No, every Ponzi Scheme starts with a scheme or plan to defraud people.  The plan things to make their scheme very enticing and although there is some seed capital, it is very small compared to their target amount and most of them are use for advertising to entice people.  It is not the reputation that is built in this scheme, but hype to deceive people to make them think they are very strong.

A Ponzi scheme is a system where a new stream of money is to pay the old members and not the one you implying having a good capital to sustain their client.

With those new funds, it bought additional Bitcoin, creating the impression that the company could generate an endless stream of value for shareholders.
Now, as I see it, it's selling Bitcoin that was originally purchased with investors' money in order to return cash to those same investors through dividends.

A Ponzi Scheme company won't have the ability to buy new Bitcoin because this kind of scheme is more focused on paying people's commissions from new peoples fund.  So I think you are somehow confused about how Ponzi Scheme really work.

Ponzi Scheme companies work with deception, so any Bitcoin purchase announcement they show is just a number on their official site dashboard, and even their member account profit dashboard is also just a number that the member eventually can't even withdraw.because the new surge of member cannot sustain the payout for the previous member.

[uneng]

That said, to be completely honest, even after 15 years I'm still not sure what to think about Bitcoin. The growing institutional adoption has made me question it even more, because I feel it has, in many ways, drifted away from or even circumvented its original purpose.

Ponzi schemes are characterized by not offering a real product or service in exchange of money. They don't add value in order to justift profitability in return to investors.

You have to ask yourself if it works like this with Bitcoin. As I see, Bitcoin is a real and useful product, which has real demand, and one of the reasons why Bitcoin managed to achieve this, is the reputation it has built along the years for being decentralized, out of the reach of centralized parties which control fiat currencies and traditional economies.

[moneystery]

There is a major difference between what Strategy does and a Ponzi scheme. In a Ponzi scheme, operators typically offer high returns and make various claims to attract as many new investors as possible, so that the funds they deposit can be used to pay other participants, and so on.
In contrast, Strategy employs a Bitcoin acquisition strategy by issuing equity or convertible debt, with the capital raised then used to accumulate Bitcoin. They are also a publicly traded company with clearly defined products and services. Therefore, they cannot be characterized as a 'Ponzi scheme,' which promises high returns.

[sunsilk]

I don't believe the average Strategy investor even knows what a satoshi is, let alone understands how Bitcoin actually works.

That's possible. Because if they do understand Bitcoin, they're going to buy it directly and not going to let it flow to Strategy.

They can do it on their own and doesn't have to go through with brokers or like them that has to take some fees from them as well.

Strategy and the likes have capitalized their reputation to generate profit from their investors money and that's the typical company financial company which investors chooses who don't like to know more just to save time.

[Oshosondy]

In my view, every Ponzi scheme starts with seed capital. Strategy had that seed capital and used it to buy Bitcoin (quite a lot of it).
It then built a strong reputation, completed an IPO (and later another capital raise), and attracted even more investor money.

With those new funds, it bought additional Bitcoin, creating the impression that the company could generate an endless stream of value for shareholders.
Now, as I see it, it's selling Bitcoin that was originally purchased with investors' money in order to return cash to those same investors through dividends.

To me, it's a very simple cycle.

You have just explained what Strategy is, but you can not explain what ponzi scheme is. Ponzi scheme function in a way that the investors are deceived into believing something that is not true, but Strategy is not deceiving anyone. How is that Ponzi? A good Ponzi scheme is when someone is telling investors that he is into agriculture as an example, that they should invest, but they are only using the money other investors later invested into the fake or scam agriculture to pay previously investors. If bitcoin price continues to increase, Strategy will succeed.

[Taricoins]

In my view, every Ponzi scheme starts with seed capital. Strategy had that seed capital and used it to buy Bitcoin (quite a lot of it).
It then built a strong reputation, completed an IPO (and later another capital raise), and attracted even more investor money.

With those new funds, it bought additional Bitcoin, creating the impression that the company could generate an endless stream of value for shareholders.
Now, as I see it, it's selling Bitcoin that was originally purchased with investors' money in order to return cash to those same investors through dividends.

To me, it's a very simple cycle.

You have just explained what Strategy is, but you can not explain what ponzi scheme is. Ponzi scheme function in a way that the investors are deceived into believing something that is not true, but Strategy is not deceiving anyone. How is that Ponzi? A good Ponzi scheme is when someone is telling investors that he is into agriculture as an example, that they should invest, but they are only using the money other investors later invested into the fake or scam agriculture to pay previously investors. If bitcoin price continues to increase, Strategy will succeed.

Most of the times, any and all claims in the ponzi schemes are operated by people who are involved in the act just to get the attention of more persons to believe and join in. The deal is that they target the public by advertising fake trust and even high returns from their works and in the end it's all good to be true and most persons can actually sense that it's a Ponzi scheme but their greed always get the better of them because you always want to see to it that you go all the way.

[Fivestar4everMVP]

In my view, every Ponzi scheme starts with seed capital. Strategy had that seed capital and used it to buy Bitcoin (quite a lot of it).
It then built a strong reputation, completed an IPO (and later another capital raise), and attracted even more investor money.

With those new funds, it bought additional Bitcoin, creating the impression that the company could generate an endless stream of value for shareholders.
Now, as I see it, it's selling Bitcoin that was originally purchased with investors' money in order to return cash to those same investors through dividends.

To me, it's a very simple cycle.

Whether saylor is selling bitcoin to return money to initial investors or not. Whatever be his reason for selling, the fact remains that he has absolutely and 100 percent the right to sell, one thing many of us aren't even looking at is that fact that we know he's selling because he choose to be transparent about, what if he did it secretly, would any of us have known and now see him as a threat.?

I personally love the man for being true to himself, he was genuine from the one set and this is why several people invested in him, and if he's going to pay them back, he can choose to raise that money from any where, and if he choose to sell some of his bitcoins, it's absolutely within his right, we all sell bitcoin every now and then and don't make it public, someone made his public possibly because he's a public figure and some people wants to have his head 😂

[X-ray]

In my view, every Ponzi scheme starts with seed capital. Strategy had that seed capital and used it to buy Bitcoin (quite a lot of it).
It then built a strong reputation, completed an IPO (and later another capital raise), and attracted even more investor money.

With those new funds, it bought additional Bitcoin, creating the impression that the company could generate an endless stream of value for shareholders.
Now, as I see it, it's selling Bitcoin that was originally purchased with investors' money in order to return cash to those same investors through dividends.

To me, it's a very simple cycle.

Whether saylor is selling bitcoin to return money to initial investors or not. Whatever be his reason for selling, the fact remains that he has absolutely and 100 percent the right to sell, one thing many of us aren't even looking at is that fact that we know he's selling because he choose to be transparent about, what if he did it secretly, would any of us have known and now see him as a threat.?

I personally love the man for being true to himself, he was genuine from the one set and this is why several people invested in him, and if he's going to pay them back, he can choose to raise that money from any where, and if he choose to sell some of his bitcoins, it's absolutely within his right, we all sell bitcoin every now and then and don't make it public, someone made his public possibly because he's a public figure and some people wants to have his head 😂

If saylor did something like that secretly he'd face a lot of lawsuit. Strategy is listed on NASDAQ so it needs to adhere to Public Disclosure Law, doing otherwise will put them into a lot of trouble.

It's definitely not because he's angel or something. There are more to it behind the scene than just Saylor being transparent out of good will.

His transparency is great, but if it hadn't for all those laws he's trying hard not to break, he'd probably never be as transparent.

[Outhue]

My conviction is that every Ponzi scheme requires seed capital (and, as you pointed out, plenty of hype). By that logic, I can argue that Bitcoin—having started from essentially nothing—doesn't fit the classic Ponzi model.

That said, to be completely honest, even after 15 years I'm still not sure what to think about Bitcoin. The growing institutional adoption has made me question it even more, because I feel it has, in many ways, drifted away from or even circumvented its original purpose.

I've not seen where institutions avoids anything that's been created to make people rich or useful for others, they always want to be part of that space to get their own share out of it before it's too late, Black rock is a good example of this too, saying that growing institutions adoption made you question bitcoin existence makes no sense. Institutions are there to make money from anything they can, it's not just Bitcoin only, if the opportunity presents itself they will go after it.

[jcojci]

So don't go with Ponzi scheme if you already identify it but buying Bitcoin and hodl it in your own wallet. That will avoids you from scam scheme and wait for the next high price to sell. Bitcoin proved itself just less than 20 years and now becomes phenomenal although many people don't know much about Bitcoin. But they will know and join into Bitcoin especially if they can see the benefit of Bitcoin for them. People used Bitcoin because of the benefits and if the Internet still exist in the next decades, Bitcoin will be besides us.

[EarnOnVictor]

Did you make your research before writing this post? Obviously  not!

First, I see no Ponzi scheme here, and secondly, it's a misconception and lie that Strategy is selling Bitcoins to redistributes to investors the way you made it look. If you are referring to the recently sold 32 BTC, it's an insignificant part of the entire holdings, and the purpose is  to fund the dividend payments to the holders of STRC. Not even the main MSTR.

[The Founding Titan]

Most Ponzi scheme functions by those inside the Ponzi scheme required to advertise for the Ponzi scheme, in essence investors are demanded to bring in more new investors for them to collect their profit.
I don't think strategy is a Ponzi scheme because most Ponzi scheme you hardly know what investment the organisers are investing in but logically there is usually no investment being made they just take from new investors to pay old investors until there is no longer funds to pay them they fold up.
Although I will rather by Bitcoin directly for myself and hold than use any other means.

I agree that Ponzi schemes often rely on investors not fully understanding what they're buying. Sometimes it's a complex mortgage product, sometimes it's an obscure financial instrument.

But what exactly is Bitcoin to the average investor? I don't believe the average Strategy investor even knows what a satoshi is, let alone understands how Bitcoin actually works.

Most were just looking for a place to put their money in for it to grow for them, Strategy provided the perfect opportunity for them to do so, asking them to do their homework on what bitcoin really is first before pouring their money into it to them seems like way too much unnecessary work, after all they've seen how much growth bitcoin has experienced these past years, as far as they are concerned that growth will continue and you can't fault them for that.

[marrcelo]

In my opinion, that's also the biggest difference. An ETF only follows the price of Bitcoin, so if Bitcoin goes down, investors lose too.
When a company starts advertising very high returns, I think people need to be careful. I would be careful investing in companies that promise very high profits. You need to study and do a lot of research to see if those profits make sense. If you have too many doubts, that's already a sign to stay away.

[Zaguru12]

That said, there are important differences. If society were to collapse completely, I don't think Bitcoin would survive because it depends on digital infrastructure. Gold, on the other hand, would still exist as a physical asset. Conversely, if society continues to advance technologically, I believe Bitcoin has a good chance of continuing to thrive.

Gold has been recognized as a store of value for thousands of years, while Bitcoin has only existed for about 17 years. Then again, humanity has made more technological and economic progress in the last century than in the previous several thousand years combined. So perhaps Bitcoin doesn't need centuries to prove itself.

That's why, even after 17 years, I still don't have a definitive opinion on Bitcoin.

I don’t think anyone would convince you to change your view around bitcoin I would say gradually you would learn the value of bitcoin just like you admit you don’t see it more as a Ponzi scheme. I truly understand your sentiment around bitcoin that it revolves round the things like internet and power (electricity) and your fear is what if there is a societal breakdown what happens to bitcoin? Yes this is a great concern but like we have already said in the past bitcoin will be the least of our worries when this happen, even the physical assets will have their difficulties been used a little.

As for the years, yes bitcoin is still very early early compare to other great assets but does years actually do matter a lot to prove a point now? We can say yes it does but 17 years is actually a good time to draw a verdict on where this is headed. When question related to this age comes up about bitcoin, I usually state that even internet was definitely doubted at its early stages so why not bitcoin.

[Chinesebaby]

In my view, every Ponzi scheme starts with seed capital. Strategy had that seed capital and used it to buy Bitcoin (quite a lot of it).
It then built a strong reputation, completed an IPO (and later another capital raise), and attracted even more investor money.

With those new funds, it bought additional Bitcoin, creating the impression that the company could generate an endless stream of value for shareholders.
Now, as I see it, it's selling Bitcoin that was originally purchased with investors' money in order to return cash to those same investors through dividends.

To me, it's a very simple cycle.

It's true that Michael Saylor got all the funds for buying all its Bitcoin through investments by people who believe and trusted his approach to Bitcoin accumulations. And one thing that is certain is that every investment has an expiry date, of which is obvious that the early investors might now be demanding their return of investment, which is why he might have sold the over 32 BTC worth approximately $2.5 million around the last week of May 2026 when the price of Bitcoin was still around $77,135 per BTC. However, quite later after the price of Bitcoin fell, the company bought more Bitcoin, which shows it's commitment to trusting the long term Bitcoin investment. Because apart from Microstrategy, no other company has been able to proof their trust like Michael Saylor.  So i don't think he intends to scam anybody.

[Abu-Naim]

In my opinion, that's also the biggest difference. An ETF only follows the price of Bitcoin, so if Bitcoin goes down, investors lose too.
When a company starts advertising very high returns, I think people need to be careful. I would be careful investing in companies that promise very high profits. You need to study and do a lot of research to see if those profits make sense. If you have too many doubts, that's already a sign to stay away.

Real investors don’t follow hype and high return promises because they knew that Ponzi scheme is like that because the have experienced some of them that come with good promises, good plan and roadmap that will convince investors based on hype and they will still letter go with investors funds without traces, that is why experience investors are always careful before taking any bold step, and if they are not convinced, they will prefer to keep holding Bitcoin rather than invest in any project they don’t know about.

[BlackHatCoiner]

People have a hard time understanding what a Ponzi scheme is.

A Ponzi pays old investors with new investors' money and has no real asset behind it. Strategy actually holds the BTC, and they're liquidating a real asset at a profit to cover dividends, not robbing Alice to pay Bob.