Talk:Ponzi scheme

not got caught

Is the anyone that has ever committed ponzi fraud without getting caught ? I do not think such is possible, yet people do them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.161.130 (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If they had, how would we know? Actually, one reason confidence tricks in general are often successful is that people don't like to admit to being conned (sometimes even to themselves). AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Very true, we had this Egyptian mausoleum scheme in Finland that most victims didn't report to the police and have kept on participating in events organized by the conmen. In fact, the Finnish article on the case has been vandalized repeatedly by someone who feels that the main culprit is a persecuted genius or something. 212.68.15.66 (talk) 07:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes It is an everyday occurence. Most people call it the money market but if reading the description of a ponzi scheme closely you will see that it describes the money markets to a tee with the only exception that it is backed by the governments. When the government backed the investors legally they had no idea that they would have to bail out the investors and that is the only reason the US and other governments paid Billions to the investors owning the stopck markets. They can not loose. The small investor looses as the law only covers the market investors. Ponzi schemes make money with hot air which is what the money markets do. Thinking --The Sleeper Awakes (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Social Security?

I'm not sure that social security belongs here. We don't typically include all the things that some unspecified person compared to the topic of the article -- and I'm sure that if we were to do so, we could have a list a mile long. Including this particular comparison strikes me as promoting a point of view. So I'm going to edit that out, if it's alright -- but if anyone disagrees, please let me know and I'd be glad to discuss. Best, --TheOtherBob 21:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It struck me as being off-topic, and arguably POV too. Wikipedia is an international project, and this was a purely US issue ('Social Security' means something entirely different in the UK for instance. If the matter should be discussed, this isn't the place to do it, but in an article on the US Social Security system. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm restoring it. You're right that we don't include all such comparisons. One difference here is that criticizing Social Security as a Ponzi scheme is a very popular right-wing talking point. If it isn't mentioned at all, there'll be a procession of ideologues editing the article to add Social Security as an example.

Even aside from that practical problem, I think that the analysis of the difference helps the reader gain further understanding of a Ponzi scheme.

As for AndyTheGrump's point, the discussion should be comprehensible to all because it's expressly referenced to "the Social Security program in the United States". Even UK readers can get an additional perspective on the concept of a Ponzi scheme by seeing how it compares to a program that has some similarities but also important differences. JamesMLane t c 22:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you're overstating the extent to which this is a mainstream or popular right-wing point -- it seems to be fringe even for them. But even if we are bombarded with right-wing POV-warriors...well, then we are -- I'd say that it's better to have the article be NPOV. And I do think it's POV to include this -- it's like having an entry in the encyclopedia for "Idiot" and saying under it: "Some people believe that George Bush is an idiot, but he's not for x, y, and z reason." Even including him there makes a statement -- even if we then try to explain why (in our opinion) he doesn't belong.

Moreover, we end up having to take a point of view on the topic if we want to have it be of any value -- we have to explain why Social Security is not a Ponzi scheme. But Governor Rick Perry disagrees -- he has taken the view that it is. Who's right? Well, we are, frankly -- but we can't actually make that decision. We have to present both sides, be neutral, and come to the conclusion that it's disputed. Remarkably, if we don't remove this section, then we need to instead edit it so as to present the point of view of those who do think that it's a Ponzi scheme -- a view which is currently hinted at, but not properly represented. And that certainly doesn't belong on this page.

As to the second point, I also don't agree -- I've read it a couple of times now, and don't have any greater understanding of Ponzi schemes. In fact, it merely confuses the issue by introducing something that some people say is like a Ponzi scheme, and that does share certain superficial characteristics, but that most people think isn't a Ponzi scheme for somewhat fundamental reasons of government and economics. There's a colorable argument that the controversy (to the extent there is one) should be on the Social Security page -- it maybe helps explain what Social Security is and is not. But it doesn't tell the reader anything about Ponzi schemes -- it just confuses them. Given all of that, I can't think of any NPOV reason we'd want to have it here. --TheOtherBob 00:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I think TheOtherBob has made the point well enough. I'd just add that I'm sure UK and other non-US readers are quite capable of understanding the article without needing off-topic explanations based on things they aren't actually trying to find out about. If the article isn't clear enough on what a Ponzi scheme is without this, then the article needs fixing, not extending to cover arbitrary things that aren't in the subject. There is also the issue of what other 'non-Ponzi schemes' might get added by other 'ideologues' out to prove a point. If the US Social Security system is included as a 'non-Ponzi' example, why shouldn't someone add their pet hate national Taxation scheme or whatever? The whole thing could get totally out of hand. Wikipedia already has well-honed methods to prevent 'ideologues' inserting off-topic comments into articles. We don't normally make concessions to them by adding off-topic waffle, so why should we do it here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The comparison of Social Security in the U.S. to a Ponzi scheme has already been made at Social Security debate (United States). I don't see how it serves any utility here. Gobonobo ^{T C} 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

TheOtherBob writes, "Who's right? Well, we are, frankly -- but we can't actually make that decision. We have to present both sides, be neutral, and come to the conclusion that it's disputed." I disagree because I don't think that totally unjustified opinions must be given equal weight and respect. "Some people say the Earth is round, some say it's flat, so the only conclusion we can come to is that it's disputed." That's not how Wikipedia treats the shape of the Earth. Our article on Earth unqualifiedly asserts (I almost wrote "flatly asserts") that it's a sphere. The erroneous belief in a flat Earth is mentioned, the refutations of that belief are summarized, and the reader is directed to the Flat Earth article for a fuller treatment.

Our articles can't tackle every possible falsehood, but, as in the case of the flat Earth, we can and should address prominent ones. The Social-Security-as-Ponzi-scheme idea has been voiced by numerous elected officials (Perry being only the latest of a long line), by the prominent TV commentator Jim Cramer ([1]), and by a well-known think tank ([2]). It was considered important enough to merit attention on the Social Security Administration's website. A Google search for Ponzi "Social Security" -wikipedia generates more than two million hits. In sum, this particular falsehood about Ponzi schemes is different from hypothetical other falsehoods. We can provide this information without opening the floodgates to every lunatic theory that some lone blogger advances.

Nor does this topic entirely exclude our UK readers. It seems that the National Insurance plan hasn't come under quite the same level of attack, probably because we in the U.S. have a higher percentage of extreme right-wingers. Nevertheless, the argument is not unknown, having been raised in the Sunday Times ([3]) and elsewhere. The SSA's analysis of the issue would apply equally well to National Insurance and other similar plans, and thus will benefit even the non-American readers. JamesMLane t c 03:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

"The SSA's analysis of the issue would apply equally well to National Insurance and other similar plans, and thus will benefit even the non-American readers". Sorry, but that is patronising crap. UK politics does not tag along on the US's coat-tails, and we don't need to have economics explained by analogy with US policy. I'm sure that this is true elsewhere too. Unless you can explain why US 'lunatic theory' should be given more prominence in Wikipedia than that of other lunatics, I see no reason to include off-topic waffle for the convenience of US domestic politics.

Perhaps what is needed for the US context is an article entitled US Social Security described as a Ponzi Scheme or something like that: I see no reason why a link couldn't be provided from this article. It doesn't belong here though. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

This is either a totally fringe idea, in which case it serves no purpose here, or it's a "very popular" one, in which case we can't dismiss it as a "flat earth" theory and must give it appropriate weight. And if we're to give it appropriate weight (as suggested by your argument about the millions of hits it receives), this article isn't the place to do it. As Gobonobo points out, there's another article that already handles it in a clearer context. Here the only real questions should be "does this example shed light on Ponzi schemes?" and "would some other example shed more light?" And the answers are "no" and "probably," in my view; I don't see what this adds -- and whatever it might add, I'm pretty sure we could work into a less confusing and discursive example. --TheOtherBob 06:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You guys make good arguements for POV. However, censoring "unpopular" topics seems much like what the comunists due when trying to control the media and what their population is alound to know. The fact of the matter is, YES, social security is looking like a ponzi scheme. The reason for this, is as time goes on, younger generations will continue to pay in, while older generation benefit. Unfortunatly, that younger generation will not benefit from program as the older generation will, as the value of this security continues to drop. The program will eventually collaps, as too many people make claims, and the money isn't there to make the payoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.182.254 (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a question of censorship (which is hardly confined to 'communist' countries anyway). It is about (a) keeping this article on-topic, and (b) not trying to impose our personal opinions of what might be a Ponzi scheme into the article. If there were mainstream reliable sources which stated that the US Social Security system was a Ponzi scheme (and explained why), and there was serious debate about the issue, it might be worth considering. However, this seems to be very much a fringe viewpoint, and including it would be giving it undue weight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this discussion but I think Social Security was actually an example made in Diamond's Overlapping generations model - with an infinite horizon, provided total output grows faster than obligations, a "Ponzi scheme" of this nature is actually sustainable. I can't recall who it was (Krugman?) that also compared it to the Hotel with an infinite number of rooms. In such a situation NOT running a "Ponzi scheme" is actually inefficient ("dynamic inefficiency") - and this is in fact one of the justifications from economic theory for social security (standard proofs of market efficiency require a finite set of goods - here we have an infinite number of goods, i.e. one at each period). So maybe we should put Soc Sec back in?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that is off-topic, if not WP:OR. If systems such as the US Social Security scheme aren't Ponzi schemes (which they manifestly aren't), they do not belong in the article. Frankly, I think economic theory has little relevance to the article anyway - or at least, any theory that assumes 'efficiency' is particularly relevant to human economic behaviour. If you wan't to understand why Ponzi schemes work, study psychology, not economics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the point. But incidentally, the whole article is total OR as it is.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Rational Ponzi Games. 4:54 "Social Security the greatest and only true beneficial Ponzi scheme ever invented", attributed to Paul Samuelson. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is another source [4].Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Inconsistent

Does 'unusually consistent' just mean 'inconsistent'? (first line) 94.172.114.173 (talk) 19:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think from the context it means 'exceptionally consistent'. It could be worded better though - I'll take a look at the sources, and see if I can clarify this. I suspect what it means is that a Ponzi scheme will be offered as supposedly giving a (high) fixed rate of return, where one would normally expect it to be variable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Social Security and not discussing it

If you were a student who came to Wikipedia to learn why Social Security is or is not a Ponzi Scheme, due to the appointed keepers of this topic no such information is available. Why? Are you afraid of presenting the free flow of information and ideas? At the very least, there should be a subtopic that has a paragraph explaining what is going on, and what could form the basis for suggesting SS is one, and why it may not be. Don't hide your heads in the sand. You will make Wikipedia irrelevant by doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.118.19 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you read the section above entitled 'Social Security?'. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources, not on the parochial agendas of certain U.S. politicians. And I'd hope that students wishing to learn about the U.S. Social Security scheme would look there, rather than here - or are they supposed to reach a conclusion, and then look for evidence to back it up? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I did read the discussion above. And obviously I am not the only one who thinks Wikipedia should be more informative. Whether one agrees with Perry or not is not the point - Wikipedia should also be the repository of all socially important information, not just what the moderators like you think is important. This is a fundamental flaw of Wikipedia on many topics - censoring of discussion and information. I am sure that you disagree of course since you come across as perfect and incapable of recognizing your flaws. Too bad.

Wikipedia doesn't have 'moderators'. We do however have policies, arrived at by consensus, and administrators given some additional powers to ensure that this consensus is maintained - though as it happens, I'm not an administrator either. As I have already stated, we base articles on external sources, not on political agendas. And by the way, discussions about whether U.S. Social Security is or isn't a Ponzi scheme is probably only 'socially important' to a minority of our readers - this is an international project, and our articles need to be 'informative' to more than a narrow section of the U.S. electorate. As I pointed out above, an article about everything somebody had described as a Ponzi scheme would be rather long... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So someone in Russia who goes to the English version of Wikipedia to find out how the American Social Security system is similar to a Ponzi Scheme will find nothing, and fail to understand a point trying to be made that impacts all governments around the world, i.e., don't promise things you don't have the money for anymore. If you leave out all things political, then why is McCarthyism discussed in Wikipedia? Why are Democratic and Republican Parties topics? Besides, politics are what brought down the Berlin Wall and destroyed the Soviet Union among other things. And unfortunately minority politics destroyed the World Trade Centers. Further, it appears that because something is important only to a minority of readers, you advocate Wikipedia not including any information on it. So just who determines the "minorityness" exclusion? Just as Google killed Yahoo as a search engine, someone will takeover Wikipedia because of its self-appointed keepers reducing the relevancy of the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.185.118.19 (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand: we aren't excluding political topics. We are however asking that they be sourced, and dealt with in a balanced way. So far, All we've seen regarding this article is a few people wishing to label U.S. Social Security as a Ponzi scheme, without providing evidence from reliable sources (i.e. the non-fringe media) that it is a Ponzi scheme, or is even seen as one by anyone but the politically-motivated. Find the sources, and content can be added to the article, but you need to show their relevance first. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking, Andy, that we should have a section something like "Ponzi schemes in the news" (needs a better header than that, though). Here we could catalogue where the term Ponzi scheme is used to describe notable events, such as the Bernie Madoff scheme and also that notable folks such as the Governor of Texas (and others I presume) describe Social Security as a Ponzi scheme. We can say that there is disagreement whether this is a Ponzi scheme or not, citing reputable sources.

Your thoughts? Madman (talk) 21:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The trouble is that you are expanding the article topic well beyond the existing subject matter. I'd say that the U.S. "social security as a Ponzi scheme" subject would be better handled as a topic on its own - if there is enough coverage to merit substantial discussion, it doesn't belong here. We already discuss the issue briefly in Us social security#Claim that it is a Ponzi scheme, and expansion of that, or preferably creation of a new article if there is the material for it, would seem a better course. Discussing it here would seem to me to be a POV fork of the social security article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

While I also suggested including something about Social Security in the article above the thing is that: 1) people are going to try to do it in a wrong way (i.e. something like "Soc Sec is a scam like the Ponzi scheme" rather than the right way, based on actual economists' views, which would be something like "Soc Sec may be a type of Ponzi scheme that actually works for the benefit of everyone") and 2) at this point it's not necessary. I'd say clean up the rest of the article first, since it really needs it, then we can discuss putting something like that in there. Volunteer Marek  18:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If there were serious economists (as opposed to political pundits) who stated that the U.S. social security scheme was a Ponzi scheme, it just might merit mentioning in an expanded article - as what is very much a minority point of view. We need to remember that this is an international project, and this particular 'issue' is almost exclusively a U.S. concern. I don't see that it is relevant to this article as it currently stands - which is about criminal Ponzi schemes for which individuals have been convicted. Expanding content to suit the demands of a subsection of the U.S. political right wing looks like undue weight to me though. But yes, this article (and the related List of Ponzi schemes) needs a lot of work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If a girl hosts a tea party and tells her dolls and stuffed animals the US social security system is a "Ponzi scheme", then this doesn't automatically qualify as reliable source and NPOV... -- 84.142.55.111 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

proper definition of a Ponzi scheme

Although the definition of a Ponzi scheme cited at the beginning of the article is very commonly quoted, it technically is not the complete definition, which is what spawns all the talk of whether Social Security is a Ponzi scheme. The standard economists' definition of a Ponzi scheme requires, in addition to the conditions already mentioned in the article, that a Ponzi scheme promise higher returns than can be obtained in the market. Without that condition, many completely legal financial arrangements would have to be considered Ponzi schemes on top of Social Security, including insurance and annuities companies. Social Security does not promise higher returns than what can be earned in the market, so it is not a Ponzi scheme. Gronteam 129.123.183.12 (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Totally agree. Seems perfectly logical and necessary to me, although I'd be loathe to disrupt the spirit of the discussion. I hope this doesn't subsequently turn into a disagreement over precise definition, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.115.160 (talk) 13:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense, certainly. What we really need though is a published reliable source we can cite for this. At the moment we are citing the US SEC [5] for the definition, which might not be seen as an ideal source. It says that promises of "High investment returns with little or no risk" are a "red flag" for a Ponzi scheme, which more or less covers the point, but frankly I'd rather see an academic source or similar being cited for the whole definition, just to avoid any suggestion that the definition we use is somehow biased. I'm sure that such sources can be found, and I'll see if I can locate one. Meanwhile, if anyone else finds one, please either note it here, or add it to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Although a recognised technically accurate and complete definition from a citable source would be good, it is not necessary in order to refute the proposition that Social Security and National Insurance are Ponzi Schemes: the current definition will do just fine for that. I just ran across this article and the first thing that came into my mind when I read the first paragraph defining a Ponzi Scheme was, "That sounds just like National Insurance, to me!" (I'm from the UK.) I opened the talk page just to make the point and found that almost the whole talk page is a discussion about it! However, although it sounds like a Ponzi Scheme, National Insurance (and I assume that US Social Security is similarly administered) is NOT a Ponzi scheme if we go by the whole current definition in the first paragraph of the article, because neither UK NI nor US SS include any promise of "short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent". The promise is of a long-term provision, that may not even match (in real terms) the level of the 'investment' (especially if you calculate the value of the 'investment' from the beginning of someone's working life until retirement using discounted cash flow). Neither is anyone enticed into investing in it: they are compelled by government edict, although, it is true that in the UK at least, there may be some level of enticement to make "additional contributions". Hedles (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me that an important part of a Ponzi scheme is that the investors don't know how it works. In the case of Social Security, we know exactly how it works, and often enough, how much money is in the account. I might agree with what Madoff seems to have claimed after he was caught, though: that the national and world economies are pretty similar to Ponzi schemes. Note the assumption that, on the average, the economy should keep growing exponentially forever. As with exponential population growth, it has to stop somewhere. Gah4 (talk) 23:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

External links

This article seems to collect spammy external links. I would suggest that people people who wish to add external links first discuss the matter here, especially if the link has already been removed in the past. Keep in mind that we have a guideline on what constitutes a valid external link; Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or an indiscriminate collection of links. External links must offer a unique resource – that means that some person's blog is generally not suitable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

fractional reserve banking

How does fractional reserve banking relate to Ponzi Schemes? --197.228.46.75 (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency

The consensus is that this is not a well-formed RfC. Editors recommended starting a new RfC that identifies the content in the article that is disputed and what sources are involved. See Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment for guidance.

Editors noted that reliable sources have compared cryptocurrencies to Ponzi schemes but that whether the content in the article complies with WP:DUE weight could be discussed further.

Cunard (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Recently among pop-finance reporters it's become in vogue to describe cryptocurrency as "Ponzi-like" without any clarification of how or why Ponzi schemes are a useful apparatus for understanding cryptocurrency - which seems to be chiefly to be a speculative asset bubble.

I would refrain from editing this article to suggest equivalency between Ponzi schemes and crypto because while the two may have some superficial similarities - and I certainly don't endorse cryptocurrency as an asset! - understanding one does not significantly aid in understanding the other.

Thanks for your time and consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.255.1.141 (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, you need to understand that you are removing content that has been supported by reliable sources and only providing your opinion as a reason why. If you can provide some reliable sources of your own here on the talk page to support your concerns, then perhaps some re-editing of the article would be in order. Until then, if you just continue to repeatedly remove the same content, you may find yourself blocked due to edit warring. - ^theWOLFchild 20:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Happily, I'd like to you to take the time and read the original uncited edit written by aerojmac - specifically the section reading "Cryptocurrencies, with no functioning, tax collecting government to back up their value, are also considered Ponzi schemes. They offer abnormally high returns, need a continuous flow of new investors to prop the price up, transaction costs prohibit the sale of these "commodities," and there is no legitimate business function behind the market value. For instance, the market capitalization of Bitcoin on 11/22/2017 surpassed that of McDonald's." This edit has been flagged and pulled by several contributors before having the text re-added with the following citation: http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/21/investing/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme/index.html - a citation which in no way justifies the language added by aerojmac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jathomas (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC

It's clear that speculative asset bubbles are an appropriate lens to view some Ponzi-like vehicles but two users are insisting on adding a formal, uncited reference calling crypto a Ponzi scheme with no clear citation, explanation or POV. Jathomas (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw the RfC, rewrite it, then start again. --Ronz (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

First, clearly identify the content in dispute and it's sources. Is it this or the larger content? --Ronz (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

I've added two references referring to cryptocurrencies being bubbles: 1, 2. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

(Invited by a bot) This RFC is poorly formed. Please read WP:RFC and restate the request with a simple NPOV question. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Counter Punch is not a reliable source, but the Financial Times, Bloomberg, and government press releases that warn of crypto ponzis are reliable. I support adding commentary to this article calling cryptos ponzis if it is from a reliable source, but if the source is not a normal channel of communication for financial news, then it's probably not a reliable source. Waters.Justin (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

As others have said, this isn't a well-formed RFC, but I can say with certainty that reliable sources referencing the idea of cryptocurrencies being a ponzi scheme at least exist (and people seem to be linking some above.) The question you probably want to be asking is whether those sources pass WP:DUE weight for inclusion on this page, which I think is slightly more complicated (IMHO a sentence might not be undue, but probably isn't required, either. More than that would probably be excessive.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Continuing discussion

I'm also concerned that the source doesn't verify the information. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see:

• U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York (September 21, 2015) "Texas Man Pleads Guilty In Manhattan Federal Court To Operating Bitcoin Ponzi Scheme",Press Release.
• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Office of Investor Education and Advocacy (June, 2013) "Ponzi schemes Using virtual Currencies", Investor Alert, SEC Pub. No. 153.
• Murphy, E.V.; Murphy, M.M., and Seitzinger, M.V. (October 13, 2015) "Bitcoin: Questions, Answers, and Analysis of Legal Issues", Congressional Research Service CRS Report R43339.
• The Viking Cop (October 28, 2017) "Assessment of Cryptocurrencies and Their Potential for Criminal Use", Divergent Options.
• Jacquez, T. (2016) "Cryptocurrency the new money laundering problem for banking, law enforcement, and the legal system", Utica College dissertation.
• Klimasinska, K. (June 12, 2015) "Terrorists Eyeing Bitcoin, Social Media to Fund Jihad, U.S. Says" Bloomberg News.
• Last but by no means least, User:David Gerard has a book about the topic: Gerard, D. (July 24, 2017) Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, (London: CreateSpace) ISBN 978-1974000067.

EllenCT (talk) 14:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Try to explain Ponzi schemes to my natives in Yakutia

We had lately super popular investment firm here in Yakutsk where people lost all of their saving to make a 600% return, how I tried hard to convince some of my fellows not to do that, they did. Humans sometimes are irrational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albertiealik (talk • contribs) 02:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

NYU journal article about trustee actions in relation to ponzi schemes

Found this journal article https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/NYU-Annual-Survey-68-2-Axelrod.pdf

The whole issue is at https://annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/68-2_full_issue.pdf

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

starting

The article doesn't say anything about how Ponzi schemes start. I suspect that many don't start out that way, but slowly turn into one, after which it is too hard to get out. Of course one would need a WP:RS, but I suspect one can be found. Gah4 (talk) 04:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

No history section

Why does this article lack and kind of history section? Who started the first Ponzi scheme? Who coined the definition? Is there a list of historical ponzi schemes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.182.193.231 (talk) 10:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Was Baldomera Larra Wetoret (Madrid, 1833 - Havana, 1915) the author of the first Ponzi scheme?

Hello all, this is my first contribution to a Talk in Wikipedia so excuse me if I'm using it incorrectly.

In the Spanish, Catalan and Polish Wikipedia, there is an article about Baldomera Larra, daughter of the famous Spanish writer Mariano José de Larra. There, they claim (with some references, mostly from Spanish outlets) she was the first person to successfully pull of a Ponzi Scheme. There are news articles from the 26th of May of 1879 talking about her sentencing in Madrid and extradition from France, where she had escaped to. Does anyone know anything about this? Should it be included in this article?

Baldomera Larra's article is not yet translated to English. I am more than happy to do so if you think it is useful UtopianIsland (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

FTX as a Ponzi scheme

The cryptocurrency exchange FTX has just collapsed. Sam Bankman-Fried's promised 8% yield, based on his promotion of his ability to exploit a price differential between crypto exchanges hearkens right back to Charles Ponzi and his postage reply coupon scheme. This is not meant to suggest that all cryptocurrency markets are Ponzi schemes -- but FTX certainly seems to have been one. I suggest adding FTX to this article as the situation develops. 75.101.104.17 (talk) 08:25, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I haven't followed it that close, but in any case you need a WP:RS. Gah4 (talk) 08:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Howe example just looks like theft

The way Sarah Howe's "earliest recorded example of a Ponzi scheme" is written it just seems like theft rather than a scheme. 82.1.172.230 (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)