It's less of a statement about bitcoin as a statement about people. It shows that people will willingly deposit money into a scheme that they know is broken.
Just like with Bitcoin Savings and Trust, people essentially knew it was a ponzi scheme but they still deposited 263024 BTC. It was offering 7% a week which is 3373% a year. There are also debates about whether the people who profited are morally obligated to send their profits to the people who lost money. Are the people who profited considered to have stolen from the people who lost?
>There are also debates about whether the people who profited are morally obligated to send their profits to the people who lost money. Are the people who profited considered to have stolen from the people who lost?
The same could be asked of state lotteries and other forms of betting. Not sure there's much difference from a moral standpoint.
>Ponzi schemes by definition hide the fact that there's any risk of non-payment
Ponzi schemes in general, yes. But, I was referring to this one, wherein it was out in the open.
>when you participate in a lottery you know - or can obtain - the odds of a payout up-front
Technically, yes. But, the odds in some games are so astronomical that knowing them is basically a non-factor. That is, people play completely hoping to get lucky, but not really expecting to win. I think the same applies with a Ponzi scheme like this one, wherein it's known that the music could stop playing anytime and the participants are simply hoping to get lucky.
Just like with Bitcoin Savings and Trust, people essentially knew it was a ponzi scheme but they still deposited 263024 BTC. It was offering 7% a week which is 3373% a year. There are also debates about whether the people who profited are morally obligated to send their profits to the people who lost money. Are the people who profited considered to have stolen from the people who lost?