Re: your 12/1/2020 response:

And the fallacy of your argument is in ignoring that having "the potential to generate large profits" (to which a shareholder would be entitled to portion) sounds very significant when looking at Amazon today, but would you have said the same thing about etoys? Bitcoin is a "Ponzi scheme" but etoys was not?

You can comfortably say that about Amazon today because it has become a profit-generating behemoth. But that was not remotely assured back in the late '90's, when Amazon.com was not appreciably different from etoys.com. The potential to generate large profits didn't seem to help etoys survive.

As for the notion that an asset is a Ponzi scheme if the only way you can make money on it is if some "fool" pays you more than what you paid, you have just relegated virtually every asset class to Ponzi scheme-status. Your house must be a Ponzi scheme. A plot of land must be a Ponzi scheme. A piece of art must be a Ponzi scheme. Every share of stock in an unprofitable company must be a Ponzi scheme.

This is why yours is a lazy argument. Calling it a Ponzi scheme is just a lame way to hurl a pejorative at something you don't like. Had you called it a highly speculative investment I'd have had no issue with the characterization. It's when you resort to what is the financial world's version of an epithet that I will call you on the weakness of your argument. Just because something involves a bit of speculation does not render it a Ponzi scheme.