While it has been said that the ECB report doesn t deny or disprove that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme it doesn t accuse it of being a Ponzi either The Reuters source is just a headline as far as it saying anyone even mentions Ponzi and Bitcoin in the same sentence Headlines are often written by people other than the article s author for the purpose of attracting eyeballs not communicating relevant information The other citation currently used not in this rewording the Register one says that some accuse Bitcoin of being a Ponzi and link to a from what I can tell blog which actually only accuses Bitcoin of having one characteristic of a pyramid scheme not a Ponzi I just don t see how any of this leads to a Wikipedia worthy mention of people accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme But since it does considering the quality and substance of the sources which say that people have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme why does the refutation even need a source or its own sentence