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
I believe you are correct. It's a Ponzi scheme. There is a book titled "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" by Charles MacKay. It was first published in 1841. It should be required reading for investors.
Bitcoin seems like a better alternative to Social Security at least?
I still love how quiet some people I know are after loosing thousands when they were brainwashed to buy and believe the price would never go down from $20k. True though it is no more a ponzi scheme than the federal reserve is. To me i see it as nothing but a gamble like buying a stock. Some win, some loose.
It can be possible in the far future that Bitcoin can be seen as a new asset class. However, there is no surety about this. The whole economic and financial sector is going to change in the future, but the world has to give too much power to make it work. But, I agree it must be taken as a pyramid scheme until proven otherwise.
If it were to be seen as a new asset class, the fact that it is unproductive--except for a possible means of evading laws-still hold. It would just be a wider population's capital being tied up with the negative yield (paying the maintenance cost).
Hopefully cooler heads in the investment community will speak out to insure this scenario does not unfold.
This has not aged well, has it? I'll be back in another 3 years.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/05/30/jp-morgan-bitcoi…
https://cointelegraph.com/news/paypal-is-hiring-crypto-engineers-amid-r…
What hasn't aged well?
The Bitcoin universe has consumed many terawatts of electricity. Every dollar someone "earned" from Bitcoin was just another dollar taken from another person. There is nothing produced that has any possibility of providing Bitcoin investors with current or future dividends or payments.
In addition to the environmental costs, we have suffered an epidemic of ransomware facilitated by cryptocurrency.
A bank is willing to take Coinbase' money in exchange for providing services is irrelevant
Given that JP Morgan is the largest bank in the world by total assets and market cap, what has made you conclude that their decision is irrelevant? Is it not reasonable to assume that other banks will follow their lead?
In regards to taking money from other people while not producing anything, how would you justify your bank's fees? https://www.td.com/ca/en/personal-banking/products/bank-accounts/chequi…
The lack of seriousness in this article is shown by how quickly you dismiss the comparison to gold with the specious argument that gold has some inherent value (jewelry). The percentage of people who purchase gold (as an investment) because it can be used for jewelry is infinitesimally small.
Moreover, most investors (and financial planners) who incorporate gold into their portfolio do not do so by owning the actual metal. Buying gold bars or coins is difficult, and storing (much less using or transporting) is hugely challenging. Instead, gold investors (who number in the millions) buy gold funds or ETFs. So, tell us how a gold ETF or fund is any less a "Ponzi scheme" than bitcoin? A gold ETF is literally nothing more than a bet on price appreciation. There isn't a single other use of a share of a gold ETF, and yet I don't see any articles criticizing investors (or financial planners) who invest a portion of their assets in a gold fund as participating in a Ponzi scheme.
Don't take my word for it; just follow the actions of large institutional investors and financial services companies who are investing huge sums to establish a presence in this space. That's not something typically characteristic of a Ponzi scheme....
I dont endorse gold as an investment either, but nevertheless it was used for ornamental purposes prior to it being used for money. In many cultures, such as India, having gold objects is a status symbol.
Only 20% of the above ground gold belongs to private investors. Over half is in the form of jewelry and industrial usages. This provides some reason to believe that there will be some demand for gold in the future; nevertheless it fails as a reliable inflation hedge and is volatile.