Does Bitcoin meet the definition of the Ponzi scheme? This is the theme of the recent Cointelegraph cryptocurrency duel, as Bitcoin strategist Kraken meets Jorge Stolfi, a computer science professor at the University of Campinas.
Like other Bitcoin skeptics, Stolfi has repeatedly defined Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. The core of his argument is that Bitcoin does not generate any cash flows, and the money that Bitcoin investors pay comes exclusively from new investors who buy Bitcoin.
“Every time you invest in bitcoin, the money you invest goes to former investors or miners and disappears,” Stolfi said.
In response to Stolfi’s argument, Rochard pointed out that Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer money system, and like other forms of money, it should not generate cash flow.
It is simply the common property of money, because it is money. So they have no cash flow, and that does not make them a Ponzi scheme, ”Rochard writes.
Rochard also noted that Bitcoin differs from Ponzi schemes in that it does not guarantee a stable income and is known to be a risky asset.
“Bitcoin promoters have repeatedly emphasized that there is a risk of loss, and that if we look at the empirical data, this risk has often been recognized,” Rochard said. “This is not how the Ponzi circuit works.”
However, Stolfi is convinced that effective Ponzi schemes do not promise a comeback, as it will be a “deadly gift”. “The next day S.E.C. “Knock on your door,” he said.
For example, a computer scientist cited the infamous Madoffs Ponzi scheme, which defrauded thousands of investors for $ 65 billion. “He returned nothing. […] The reason people invested in him is because he paid everyone who wanted to pay. “