How can you invest in ponzi schemes while riding that moral high horse "exposing" ponzi schemes?

Many of the victims of the FTX collapse were ordinary people. Perhaps gullible or unwise in some cases, but not scammers. Those who vilify SBF mostly cite two reasons (a) His actions benefitted himself and caused a lot of harm to others and (b) Perceived criminality.

The biggest victims are probably the richest investors. Pareto principle still applies here. There is no such thing as "innocent" crypto investor, crypto is a ponzi and all the investors know this. If you are a crypto investor, then you are complicit in the scam.

quas wrote:How can you invest in ponzi schemes while riding that moral high horse "exposing" ponzi schemes?

Let's be clear, you said he exposed what he perceived as scams while investing in something different. But to answer this (potentially misleading) question there are at least two ways:

• He doesn't take your word as an authority and disagrees with you that all crypto are ponzi schemes.
• Although he accrues the benefits he does not deceive others into taking part in the scheme and accruing losses.

quas wrote:The biggest victims are probably the richest investors. Pareto principle still applies here.

Partially true. The bigger victims will tend to be richer, yes. The richest investors didn't necessarily have holdings in FTX though. This is not relevant to anything else that's been said of course, as being wealthy is not criminal or unethical.

quas wrote:There is no such thing as innocent crypto investor, crypto is a ponzi and all the investors know this. If you are a crypto investor, then you are complicit in the scam.

That's just a nonsense assertion. Clearly lots of people disagree with this and you can't bridge the gap to hypocrisy with your own (totally unjustified and tangential) opinions.

Hypocrisy is espousing one thing while doing another. Espousing wise crypto investment but avoiding scams while attempting to invest wisely in crypto and avoid scams is anything but that. Even if I personally think it's a bad idea.

All crypto investors know that every single cent they earned from their crypto investments is a cent taken away from other investors. That money don't magically come from nowhere.

Although he accrues the benefits he does not deceive others into taking part in the scheme and accruing losses.

Coffeezilla damn well knows that the value of crypto like Bitcoin and Ethereum is propped up by scams such as Tether, since his video on Tether is one of the most watched crypto scam exposing video on the internet. Coffeezilla mentioned that he invested in Bitcoin and Ethereum. As an influencer (someone with sizeable audience on social media), that's how you get people to invest in crypto.

Partially true. The bigger victims will tend to be richer, yes. The richest investors didn't necessarily have holdings in FTX though. This is not relevant to anything else that's been said of course, as being wealthy is not criminal or unethical.

Maybe this will have to be proven. But I am willing to guess that the richest investors most likely got rich from previous crypto investments.

quas wrote:All crypto investors know that every single cent they earned from their crypto investments is a cent taken away from other investors. That money don't magically come from nowhere.

Whether true or not. This is not what "scam", "hypocrite" or "ponzi scheme" means.

You have other definitions of "scam", "hypocrite" or "ponzi", Thommo? Let's hear them.

Scam: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation.

Currency trading, or simply buying dollars to use on your holiday, would word for word fit what you wrote above and is neither fraudulent or deceptive, for one example.

Hypocrisy: Engaging in the same behaviour you criticise in others.

So being a meat eater when someone tells you that eating meat is bad is fine. It doesn't matter whether you, quas, espouse vegetarianism as to whether I, Thommo, am a hypocrite, for example. I am only a hypocrite if I condemn eating meat and then eat meat.

Ponzi scheme: A form of fraud named after Italian businessman Charles Ponzi that deceptively induces investments through the promise of legitimate business activity while paying returns not from those profits, which do not in fact exist, but from the funds provided by other investors.

The key word here is "fraudulent" or "deception".

If the value of the traded dollar is being propped up via speculations instead of legitimate excess market demand, is that fraudulent?

Currency trading, or simply buying dollars to use on your holiday, would word for word fit what you wrote above and is neither fraudulent or deceptive, for one example

If I buy dollars to use on holiday, I don't buy that for the express intent of profiting from dollar trading, so I get to keep my conscience clean.

So being a meat eater when someone tells you that eating meat is bad is fine.

But Coffeezilla, much like Jake Tran, is a meat eater who tells you that eating meat is bad.

quas wrote:If the value of the traded dollar is being propped up via speculations instead of legitimate excess market demand, is that fraudulent?

No. Not even close.

Doubly so if you attempt to apply this "reasoning" to each and every person who acquires a dollar.

quas wrote:But Coffeezilla, much like Jake Tran, is a meat eater who tells you that eating meat is bad.

No, what you described was him criticising what he saw as scams* in the crypto world whilst advising people to avoid those scams* and invest in other parts of the crypto world**.

You injected your own view that those other things were in fact also scams, and that he certainly knows that, to bridge the gap. But he does not espouse your views, so he's not being a hypocrite.

Of course, in typically hyperbolic fashion, whilst attempting to, for inexplicable reasons, cover for Jake Tran you asserted that this was in fact worse than knowingly attempting to scam people.

*"he will be the first to make videos specialising on crypto/NFT scams"
**"This guy has mentioned that he invested in crypto like Bitcoin and Ethereum"

A smoker who says that smoking's bad for you.

It's hardly a great leap in understanding here.

But he does not espouse your views, so he's not being a hypocrite.

He has made several videos which explicitly or implicitly by indirect inference call all cryptos a scam and/or ponzi*. Even if he hasn't done that, he has called Tether a scam, and has acknowledged that Tether scam is what props up the value of cryptos like Bitcoin and Ethereum, which he has invested in. And, of course, he has mentioned that he invested in crypto via his social media platform, which is how he expose his audience to crypto investment.

* I know you have made the distinction that a ponzi has to promise profits via legitimate business activity which does not actually exist, so its profits actually come from other investors. And, by this definition, crypto is somehow not a scam, because it's an honest liar that never promises non-existent legitimate business activity, and instead outright claims that its profits come from other investors. Unfortunately, coffeezilla himself doesn't care for that distinction, and he would gladly make videos vilifying all crypto as ponzi scams as long as he continues to earn youtube adsense $$$ from his vids.

Spearthrower wrote:A smoker who says that smoking's bad for you.

It's hardly a great leap in understanding here.

This analogy doesn't work here.

The smoker harms himself. Whereas Coffeezilla can preach the evils of crypto scams, while benefiting from his own crypto investments without suffering any harm.

Quas, if you want to show some evidence for this:

quas wrote:Coffeezilla is the biggest hypocrite of them all.

By all means, please do. It would be interesting and on topic. That might mean actually showing us some of these videos (with time stamp, I don't want to be trawling for nebulous claims for hours on Christmas Eve, and I'm not going to be alone on that) though.

Just as a point of information, it's necessary for hypocrisy that the two events are coterminous. Sometimes people change their minds as well, and that's not the same thing.

Thommo, there is a video of him calling Tether a scam, and within that video, he has exposed that Tether scam has fraudulently inflated the value of Bitcoin. I told you that he invested in Bitcoin and I know that because he told people on his social media platform, which is how cryptobros reel in new investors to pump up their ponzis.

quas wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:A smoker who says that smoking's bad for you.

It's hardly a great leap in understanding here.

This analogy doesn't work here.

Because your initial capitulation of it 'doesn't work' because it's just not logical.

quas wrote:The smoker harms himself. Whereas Coffeezilla can preach the evils of crypto scams, while benefiting from his own crypto investments without suffering any harm.

Ok I'll move this goalpost with you then: so a smoker, who says that smoking's bad for you, who also sells cigarettes at his shop.

If you're intent on not grasping it, quas - then no one's going to be able to reason you out of a position that's not reasoned. It's really very simple to understand.

Even IF (I think Thommo's already cast sufficient doubt on the accuracy of your contention) he did call all cryptocurrency something like a 'Ponzi scheme' then, just as with any Ponzi scheme, it's still often possible to make money by getting in and out at the right time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

Ergo, earlier investors may still benefit. So a) he could benefit by investing early b) he could advise people to invest early and they could benefit c) he could encourage people to invest later so that he can benefit.

None of this entails hypocrisy.

Spearthrower wrote:Ok I'll move this goalpost with you then: so a smoker, who says that smoking's bad for you, who also sells cigarettes at his shop.

The smoker will still harm himself. That's quite unlike promoting scams which you could benefit from without suffering any repercussion.

Even IF (I think Thommo's already cast sufficient doubt on the accuracy of your contention) he did call all cryptocurrency something like a 'Ponzi scheme' then, just as with any Ponzi scheme, it's still often possible to make money by getting in and out at the right time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ponzi_scheme

A Ponzi scheme (/ˈpɒnzi/, Italian: [ˈpontsi]) is a form of fraud that lures investors and pays profits to earlier investors with funds from more recent investors.

Ergo, earlier investors may still benefit. So a) he could benefit by investing early b) he could advise people to invest early and they could benefit c) he could encourage people to invest later so that he can benefit.

None of this entails hypocrisy.

Which is exactly my point!

But, now you are saying that investing in ponzi can be beneficial as long as you get out early enough, then why are we vilifying SBF as evil? After all, his early investors probably made lots of money.

quas wrote:But, now you are saying that investing in ponzi can be beneficial as long as you get out early enough, then why are we vilifying SBF as evil? After all, his early investors probably made lots of money.

Because he (is perceived to have) set up a fraud.

It's not complicated.

Being a fraud is how SBF makes money for his investors in the first place.

And that is not ok.

Fraud is not ok. People are not ok with fraud. The law is not ok with fraud. Society is not ok with fraud.

BTW, Thommo, I just remembered this. Crypto can definitely be classified as ponzi because it is marketed as deriving its value from an actual use case when it has none. In the crypto world, with the exception of bitcoin, all other cryptocurrencies usually have some sort of use case. For example, Ethereum can be used as a smart contract platform from which you can build other crypto-related applications such as other cryptocurrencies or NFT arts. But then these uses are just BS without any useful real world application, other than facilitating ponzi schemes. So, it's all ponzis within ponzis, like a ponziception or ponzi babushka doll.

I think probably there's a limit to how much twisting these key terms can take in any meaningful discussion, and I think we are well past that point now.