Merriam-Webster defines a pyramid scheme as “a usually illegal operation in which participants pay to join and profit mainly from payments made by subsequent participants.”
The former general counsel of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Debra A. Valentine, said the following:
Does a vehicle that provides no cash flows, transfers no tangible or intangible property rights, and is marketed through claims that new buyers can be persuaded to drive up prices fit this description?
I believe bitcoin is such an instrument.
Bitcoin is too inefficient to be a currency. Certainly, no government has any plans to use it as one. And when bitcoin fuels actual transactions — other than those of the speculative variety — it is often to keep the transaction off the radar of the legal authorities: think ransomware, skirting anti-money laundering laws, or evading capital constraints.
Thus the sole way most promoters will realize value from their bitcoin holdings is through new entrants into the market. Public statements by speculators illustrate this:
Store of Value?
The “store of value” argument also depends on new buyers coming in to support those who want to liquidate their holdings. Again, this suggests a pyramid scheme, albeit one that doesn’t promise explicitly high returns. Whatever it is, it is not a legitimate investment.
Stock appreciation ultimately implies that people owning the shares earn increasing profits. Commodities are more than just “stores of value.” Governments require the use of fiat currencies. With a few notable exceptions, governments stabilize their currencies and don't sell them to the general public as speculative investments. For these exceptions, more stable currencies are available.
Some say bitcoin is similar to gold. In the best of cases, should ownership stabilize, bitcoin and gold would share certain characteristics: Both would be volatile investments with poor long-term returns.
But gold has other uses: To fashion jewelry and other art, for example, or even as doomsday currency should electricity and internet become unavailable. Bitcoin can’t serve either of these roles.
More likely, after the supply of new buyers is exhausted, the final investors in the pyramid will find themselves with assets that decline in value as others sell because the one thing that they expected from bitcoin — higher prices — ceases to materialize.
Social Value?
Does investing in bitcoin have any social value? Investing in the securities markets provides capital to firms, governments, and other entities. Speculation in commodities creates markets that allow their users to hedge their exposure to price fluctuations.
Bitcoin can help people evade government restrictions on currency and capital. But even that dubious distinction rarely enters the discussion among bitcoin supporters. Still, we cannot ignore laws and regulations we disagree with or governments we disapprove of. Furthermore, the same mechanisms that can help people avoid capital controls through bitcoin can also help them avoid government sanctions against unsavory regimes and engage in money laundering and ransomware schemes.
Perhaps these excesses could be tolerated if they were mere side effects. But other than for speculation, bitcoin has no utility beyond such activities. No doubt some will point to blockchain and claim that it is the silver lining to the crypto cloud, and demonstrates bitcoin's merits as an investment. But bitcoin provides no rights to use or profit from blockchain technologies. Whatever they have to offer, one does not need to purchase cryptocurrency to use blockchain.
So encouraging the purchase of bitcoin by invoking the benefits of blockchain is clearly misleading.
How is bitcoin different from other pyramid schemes, say, those run in penny-stock boiler rooms? The only distinguishing characteristics are the record-keeping method — a “proof of work” blockchain — and a large marketing effort that uses the media instead of the telephone.
In my view, most of those who invest in bitcoin are effectively participating in a pyramid scheme either as a future victim or a perpetrator. Some no doubt truly believe that bitcoin will function as a currency for enabling transactions, rather than a “store of value." But I wonder whether such people truly understand economics, our monetary system, or our business environment
These critiques are not unique to bitcoin, but apply to all cryptocurrencies. Some could offer value as electronic coupons to purchase yet-to-be-developed services. However, that does not constitute a new asset class, but rather an existing asset class with a new record-keeping system. So investors must apply the same due diligence as for other investments to assess what legal rights they are purchasing and the ability and willingness of others to deliver on their commitments.
It is not my intention to play the thought police here. My point is investment managers need to consider these issues before investing in or promoting cryptocurrencies. So should those responsible for personnel decisions about managers.
Because the fact is, if it looks like a pyramid scheme and sounds like a pyramid scheme, we should treat it like a pyramid scheme until proven otherwise.
If you liked this post, don’t forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.
All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author’s employer.
Image credit: ©Getty Images/ Malte Mueller
Professional Learning for CFA Institute Members
CFA Institute members are empowered to self-determine and self-report professional learning (PL) credits earned, including content on Enterprising Investor. Members can record credits easily using their online PL tracker.
61 Comments
Great article. Governments around the world would have to give up way too much power for this to work. Not going to happen.
The whole financial system and economics we know today will change. Banking system has long enough flourished. As we move forward towards a major technological change, we "humans" will discover new ways to become adapted to new technological advancements, one such is "Bitcoin".
We will change the financial system to use technologies that make people's lives better.
Because Bitcoin is less efficient and lacks the flexibility of alternatives, it will not be part of that change, except for some period where it is useful for evading laws & as a way for doomsayers to tie up their capital.
As long as I walk around with a pocket full of “Federal Reserve Notes”, I probably won’t join the chorus looking down at cryptocurrency. Wouldn’t you feel safer if the amount of “dollars” in circulation was limited to a fixed total (i.e. Bitcoin 21,000,000; Litecoin 84,000,000)? Take a look at Federal Reserve of St Louis FRED charts of money supply as they approach infinity. Now THERE is a Ponzi scheme.
Clearly, money supply is a confusing issue to many. Adding to the money supply is definitively NOT a ponzi scheme! If anything, it’s the opposite. Adding to the money supply prevents a currency from appreciating in value. That’s not the purpose but a side effect. No one is promising that holding dollars or any other currency is an investment. They aren’t. The only reason people are buying or holding crypto is for the promise of gain or for shady transactions. Is the first global ponzu scheme so the pool of “investors” is large enough to keep it going for quite a while.
We already, for all intents and purposes, have digital currency, albeit built on the current banking system. I rarely use cash. My bank is wholly online. My balance is just a digital ledger entry. Even the rare appearance of a check results in a scan via my phone that effects a ledger change in my digital account. I send “money” to friends and family with variety of apps that similarly exchange digital ledger debits and credits. The only thing I don’t have is an unwieldy system that requires enormous time and resources for an individual transactions or an enormously inefficient digital “printing” press that makes most of its returns via energy arbitrage because it’s so damn expensive to mint new coins!
Many of your statements are unsubstantiated and your logic is flawed. Where is the evidence to back up your claim that "no government has any plans to use bitcoin as a currency"?
In a case involving bitcoin two years ago, U.S. District Judge Alison Nathan in Manhattan rules, “Bitcoins are funds within the plain meaning of that term. Bitcoins can be accepted as a payment for goods and services or bought directly from an exchange with a bank account. They therefore function as pecuniary resources and are used as a medium of exchange and a means of payment.” (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmorgan-cyber-bitcoin-idUSKCN11P2DE)
Further, Canadian government's website clearly states, "Digital currency is electronic money." (https://www.canada.ca/en/financial-consumer-agency/services/payment/dig…)
The Japanese government has been for the past years open to the idea of crypto and have established laws and regulations to oversee exchanges: "The Japanese government recognized bitcoin as legal tender in April and required cryptocurrency exchange operators to register with it." (https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-japan-bitcoin/japans-fsa-gives-offici…)
Your claim that bitcoin "transfers no tangible or intangible property rights" is probably due to your lack of understanding of how bitcoin transactions are processed and recorded. The recording keeping nature of bitcoin in its current state is probably one of the most irreversible way of transferring intangible property rights.
Given your expertise in quantitive modelling, I'd recommend you take a look at Satoshi's white paper and the current hash rate and then calculate the amount of resources required to undermine the finality of a bitcoin transaction after certain amount of confirmations.
To expand, bitcoin has even received legal protection in countries that are not seen as openly friendly to crypto. For instance, a Chinese court rules that bitcoin, considered a "valuable personal property", is entitled to legal protection of property rights. (https://www.ccn.com/chinese-civil-court-bitcoin-are-legally-protected-p…)
You wrote that gold and bitcoin "both would be volatile investments with poor long-term returns." Did you know that gold was used as money for thousands of years? If so, do you consider holding money a form of investment? If so then "investing" in gold would have proved much more profitable than "investing" in government money over the "long-term".
The claim that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme is ridiculous. Bitcoin is a computer code that allows the transfer of information in a fashion never achieved previously; kind of like the internet. And just like the internet few decades back, crypto is in its early stage and has many challenges to overcome. Blindly labelling such a monumental advancement in technology hinders that process. You, as an educated member of the community, should know better.
I need to point to one of many potential points of confusion in the comments.
Generally legal tender means that the country establishes the currency as a means to settle all debts and accepts tax payments denominated in the currency.
In most countries some merchants will accept foreign currency . This does not make those 'legal tender' in any meaningful sense, even though some articles will misuse the term losely.
Likewise in the articles cited, countries are merely choosing to regulate the usage of bitcoin, not endorsing or mandating it.
In all of these countries your tax bill is determined in the local currency. Court judgments are determined in the local currency. Bitcoin does not have this status anywhere.
In fact if you check Google Trends, interest in Bitcoin has plummeted after late 2017 when FOMO drove a substantial buying spree. This is true in Japan also, where searches for dollar and Euro now exceed those for Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has been around for ten years. It has not achieved widespread usage and acceptance as a payment mechanism for two reasons. The validation mechanism and the requirements for maintaining the network make it a costly mechanism. Many of the costs are obscured because of the payments to miners in the form of newly minted coins. The other is that the usage of other payment mechanisms is easier.
I'll just add that a noted CEO was sanctioned for making erroneous statements concerning his company. Should those who promote crypto currency be held to similar standards?
Hahaha. Roasted.
Regarding this comment: "In all of these countries your tax bill is determined in the local currency. Court judgments are determined in the local currency. Bitcoin does not have this status anywhere."
FYI: The state of Ohio in the USA accepts Bitcoin to pay your tax bill. Same thing in municipality of Chiasso in Switzerland. The Arizona senate voted to accept Bitcoin as tax payment (Litecoin as well).
Can you please update that statement in your article?
Otherwise this is very well written, and I appreciate you looking at both sides of the discussion.
Thanks for the comment.
I don't see that the Airzona Senate Bill ever passed the other house and became law.
Actually Ohio does not accept bitcoin for any taxes. Because the treasurer is owns crypto, he has arranged for a private firm to accept bitcoin and convert it to dollars which are remitted to the State. The terms of service on the website state:
"You will not be relieved of your payment liability for the underlying tax obligation of your payment through the Services to TOS, except to the extent that TOS realizes final payment of the underlying obligation in United States Dollars."
Proposals for cryptocurrency "acceptance" in other states, which have failed, also would have had similar restrictions. Acceptance of a payment mechanisms means that the state has to take position and take the volatility risk of the mechanism, otherwise it is no different from just the state offering a convenient mechanism of selling something.
I don't know whether the Swiss towns hold the crypto for any length of time or have a provider convert the Bitcoin to local currency, but the taxes are still quoted and denominated in local currency.