Talk:Pyramid scheme/Archive 1

message: Removed the "citation needed" notice from :
"Though sharing a similar nomenclature the concept of the pyramid scheme does not have any direct association with the Great Pyramids of Egypt, nor did it in fact originate in Egypt."
since the only connection is obviously just the geometric relation between the object and the organization of victims in "pyramid" scams. It hardly needs a citation, particularly since it would be difficult to find a citation for a negative (a lack of connection between the two things).156.34.60.157 11:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that doesn't cut it. You'll need to actually source any claim made, especially one that is "in fact". -Eep² 03:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connection to Egypt 

message: "Although pyramid schemes have been declared illegal..."
Where? USA Jurisprudence?
* illegal in Austria (clem 17:42, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are illegal in the UK now. Davidbod 00:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And Aus. its in the trade practices act. THE KING 11:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What makes a pyramid schemes illegal varies.  Sometimes it due to fraud statues, other it is lottery statues, and still other it is compensation statues.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramid Scheme Illegality 

message: Should Gratis be used as one of very few concrete examples of pyramid schemes in the article?  It seems like the fact that even if you participate in it, but don't succeed in getting the free item you haven't lost anything, or sent anyone money differentiates it from a straightforward pyramid scheme.
--AliasXIII 17:49, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gratis 

message: I have seen pyramid schemes where no money gain is advertised; as a kid, I participated in one, sending chocolate to others on the list; I think my father (he has a clothes shop) mentioned a pyramid letter thing where business friends would send underwear (unused, I hope). Variants might also include postcards or smthn like that. (clem 17:41, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramid schemes without money 

message: These people act like they are interested in you, talking about financial independence, being your own boss, serving more people is the way to make more money, etc.  Pixstar and Worldwide Dearmbuilders are pushing a pyramid scheme on you.  They try to get you to sign up for online access to products and then motivate you to excite others to do the same through your reference.  The more people sign up through YOU, the more you "upline" (i.e. guy who conned YOU into doing it) makes in terms of a bonus.
Come on. I dare you to meet the people that I work with.  You don't have a big enough desire to make a difference in this world to make a statment like that.  It is obvious that you know nothing about the details of what WWDB does and stands for. Just build the buisness and help someone change there life for the better and then come talk.
Its funny, i just ran into some guy who made me watch a dvd on Pixstar and Worldwide Dearmbuilders. its true, they do act like they are interested in you. watch out for this.
*I vote for removal of this entire section since it's so obviously POV on both parts. Orthografer 06:54, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beware Pixstar and Worldwide Dreambuilders 

message: I changed the term "IBO" to "participant" as the former acronym was not defined earlier in the article.--Chuckhoffmann 06:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Change 

message: Should Wikipedia be giving advice?  While I generally agree with the advice given, I don't know that it's the role of an encyclopedia to provide that sort of advice.  Though a link to a gvt. web page where that sort of advice is given would be apropriate.  Generic69 02:12, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, on all points. 68.14.76.141 09:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "What to do" section 

message: Is the math in this section correct? I think if each member must recruit 2 more beneath them the percentage of losers is 87.5%. See http://www.pyramidschemealert.org/PSAMain/pyramids/progression.html.
: You are probably correct. I wrote the section to emphasise that the bottom layer always loses money but in truth, the people in the layer above, and maybe the layer above that do too because of the way the money is divided. I suggest it would be worth changing the section to make it clearer if your link is a more accurate representation of how these schemes work. --MagicMoose 21:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally rewrote the section after a lot of thought and hopefully it makes a lot more sense. I initially misunderstood how the recruit 2 / 8-ball models worked and have adjusted the description and stats now that I do know how they work. --MagicMoose 23:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Saturation 

message: Recently a lot of paypal pyramid schemes are appearing on the Internet. It would be great if someone would discuss on that subject in this article, or maybe in a new article. Dooga 00:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paypal Pyramid Schemes 

message: I've always been wondering one thing when I read mails advertising pyramid schemes. They tell me to mail a few dollars to some guy and put my name at the bottom of a list. What's stopping me from putting my name at the bottom of a list without mailing any money to anyone? In fact, what's stopping me from putting my name right at the top of a list? Who's going to know whom I have sent money to, or where I have posted the mail? All this makes pyramid schemes even more dangerous and false, because there is no guarantee a new recruit will ever be paid any money, no matter how many levels of recruits come after him. JIP | Talk 13:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I have removed this section entirely, as it violates Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 8.  Instruction and advice is not appropriate for a wikipedia article.  In addition, the entire section pertained only to the United States. --Xyzzyplugh 03:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Civic Duty and Due Dilligence

message: I have noticed that someone added that Matrix schemes are mostly viewed to be legal, yet there is no evidence to this.  I agree with the comparison, but do not agree with that statement.  The OFT has identified them as being scams and at this point there are no statemtns which would lead someone to believe they are legal.  Arzel 17:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is clearly no longer true in this regard. I have re-written the intro to make this clearer.Davidbod 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Matrix Scheme Link 

message: Bit disappointed some schemes were not mentioned by name here - in particular Women Empowering Women which is so notorious it probably deserves its own article. Any others we should name? Davidbod 00:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just made a mention of it in the 8-ball section and of "gifting". It could probably be described in more detail in its own section. I think it would also be worth going through some of the psychological techniques that these scams use to push people's buttons. For example, someone in a scheme near me started putting it about that a local celebrity was involved, thereby conveying some kind of legitimacy on it - "well if he's doing it, it must be legal etc.". The WEW scam no doubt went to great lengths to make women think their hubbies were yahoos who wouldn't understand the scheme and therefore best not mention it at all etc. Unfortunately there are so many links to WEW that I've yet to describe one with a first hand description of how it works but it's clear it's just an 8-ball --MagicMoose 11:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of famous schemes 

message: From the last part of the article:
These businesses thrive on selling sample cases of their products to newly recruited salespersons, and will offer bonuses to members which recruit new salespersons....In addition, these legitimate businesses do not pay bonuses for the recruitment of salespeople.' Thanos6 06:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a contradiction? 

message: I don't see the purpose of this section.  For one it does NOT offer a comparison to MLM's.  It seems to be nothing more than a shill for a few MLM's.  Since this article is not about MLM's I think this section should be removed, or if a comparison section left in, it should deal specifically with the differences between MLM's and Pyramid schemes.  Arzel 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. There might be reputable MLMs, but there are plenty of disreputable ones with a failure rate mathematically built-in. --MagicMoose 12:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree as well, the section comparing popular MLMs to pyramid schemes is totally unsourced for something raising such a controversial claim, weasel words also abound ("may lead to"  "Simular") and without sources for the assertions that they strongly urge referals over product sales must be sourced because they are boarderline attacks on the companies in question.  In addition phrases like "they consider themselves..." speak to a strong POV issue.  Would it be alright if I attempt a cleanup of the section? Wintermut3 07:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't recall once hearing of a "reputable MLM," save from those participating in the particular MLN (which, should we choose to listen to them, makes ALL of them "reputable"). It should also be noted that those individuals who have left a variety of "reputable" MLMs (Amway, Quixtar, and all of the lesser-known MLMs) have consistently cited the push on referrals and the sale of referral-materials (tapes, books, etc.) as the primary reasons for their departure from said MLMs. However, the members of MLMs will never accept such sources as reliable. 68.166.4.164 (talk) 07:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Partnerships with UNICEF, UN Awards, Chamber of Commerce awards etc etc don't make something "reputable"? Perhaps not in some eyes, but nevertheless they are. Your evidence is quite obviously a highly self-selecting group, and an extremely, extremely small one given the number of people who have been involved. Problems with  excessive "Push on referrals" and sales of related materials fo occur but are (a) not a problem unique to MLM and (b) have nothing to do with this article and Pyramid Schemes. The primary issue with Pyramid Schemes and MLM is that a large number (perhaps even the majority!) of companies that call themselves MLM are actually Pyramid Schemes trying to disguise themselves as legitimate MLMs. This has, not surprisingly, lead many people to the non sequitur that MLM=Pyramid Scheme, thus MLMs do I think need to be addressed in the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 08:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Multi-level marketing companies (MLMs) have become an accepted and legally sanctioned form of pyramid scheme in the United States.".  Wiley is one of the most respected publishers around and this is the latest comment on the subject.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison to MLM's 

message: There's a sentence in the intro that seems too strong to me. It's 
: There are other commercial models using cross-selling such as multi-level marketing (MLM) or party planning which are perfectly legal and sustainable.
I think that's a little strong, and the sentence seems a little weird in its context. I'd be inclined to change it to
: There are other commercial models using cross-selling such as multi-level marketing or party planning which can be perfectly legal and are claimed to be sustainable.
and also to move it a little lower. I also might remove the mention of cross-selling and go with a different intro that better matches the related paragraph in the text. Would people mind? William Pietri 15:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. MLM should be mentioned as a means of business whose model of income relies in part on recruiting new members (i.e. creating a downline), but claiming it is sustainable or legal depends on the MLM. Lots of pyramid / matrix schemes attempt to look like MLMs by selling some product, but they are still pyramid schemes. The legality would MLM would be defined by the income derived from the product and who its sold to outside members of the MLM. There should be a brief description of an MLM with comparison to pyramid schemes including wording to the effect described above, but actual instances of MLMs can be described in their own article. --MagicMoose 12:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Most business professors will tell you that Network marketing is without a doubt the best format with which to conduct business. It is one of the few business formats that you can pay your employees for their efforts and not a penny more. If more business were structured this way company's would not be wasting good money for bad unproductive employees who milk the clock. It does not make sense to pay an employee for doing less then adequate work the same amount as the guy next to him who is doing quality work. I personally believe that if more company's in America paid there employees peace work or commission rather than hourly or salary company's would finally get what the pay for in a employee. This would improve the ratio between dollars spent and actual production. Note I have been in a number of network marketing company's with minimal financial success but I am mature enough to realize that it is no ones fault but my own. Also note that I am sure that fraudulent network marketing schemes exist as well. In closing I will say that if you are going to bad mouth a company that is one thing, but to stereotype a whole business structure is another. I have personally worked for ACN, FFI, Mona Vie, and I am currently working to build my fortune with Biz Calling Cards. If have worked for any of these company's and are unhappy with your ROI Return on Investment I highly urge you to take a look in the mirror...you might find the problem. Then you may be able to fix it. Love to hear your thoughts on my contribution to this matter. imherejustincase@msn.com  Justin  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.140.195 (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What "experts" are these?  I found two books both published by Wiley that say MLMs are nothing more than legalized pyramid schemes and I provided reliable source after reliable source in the MLM article that shows their claims money making opportunities are smoke and mirrors.  Peer reviewed journals and papers as well as respected magazines point to MLMs being unsustainable and at best very questionable.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

text: Also there is a book by Cengage Learning Business Press that say that MLM is a poor method due to motivational issues and very expensive compared to other methods.  Again what professors claim MLM are a good idea?--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: ANd here's Bruce again on his little anti-MLM crusade. Do you just instantly discard any source that's pro-MLM? You'll find obscure references in works not at all related to MLM, yet ignore entire books on the topic by academics, such as Professor Dominique Xardell's The Direct Selling Revolution and Professor Charles King's The New Professionals.--Insider201283 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro mention of MLM 

message: I am removing an external link at the bottom of the page that is labeled "Pyramid scheme - Monavie" and links to a company called Monavie.  There is nothing in the text of this article to warrant this random link.  If the article wants to discuss Monavie and how it relates to pyramid scheme, then go ahead.  But for now, I'm going to remove it.  
Thanks!  Bsheppard 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From googling around Monavie appears to be some dubious health drink with claimed medicinal properties being promoted via MLM style tactics. So not a pyramid scheme but definitely a MLM and possibly a dubious one. The fact that it makes medical claims complete with nonsense about extracts of plants from the Amazon should set alarm bells off. If it did what it claimed it would be a drug and require FDA approval, if it doesn't then the person selling it is peddling snake oil and on very thin ice indeed. 
--MagicMoose 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extra links 

message: I removed the link to the FTC's section on Pyramid Schemes because it no longer worked.  When I have a few minutes, I'll try and find the correct link, unless someone else finds it first.
Bsheppard 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed bad link to FTC 

message: I used to be involved in the GPT (Get Paid To) arena and I used to see randomizers advertised all the time.  They are a pyramid scheme slightly upgraded to include indirect referrals.  Here's how they work:
Alice signs up for "Dollar Randomizer" by creating an account and paying x amount to a member along with an administrative fee.  She is given a referral page that she then promotes to bring in new members who will pay her x amount when they join.  On top of this, any random or anonymous visitors to the page are presented with a random referral page, which could be Alice's or someone else's.  Alice can increase her chances of it being her page being shown to random people by 1. upgrading her account or 2. bringing in a lot of new members.
Sometimes these programs offer other perks of being a member, such as advertising or stuff for download and/or resale.  I actually joined one because they had a lot of e-books and software packages available for free with resale rights (thought there might be something there I could sell and make money from).  My guess is the resale stuff is a flawed attempt to make it look like an MLM.
-- Arcturis 18:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Randomizers 

message: I noticed that somebody removed a link to - Alston Price. Upon review of this site it is obviously a pyramid scheme. I would ask people to vigilant to people removing links without good reason. If there is debate about site then take it up in discussion. On a side note I found a site which is a veritable rat's nest of Pyramids, Ponzis and other dubious get rich quick schemes, might be worth a look for other examples - . There is some breathtaking gullibility in that forum. --MagicMoose 15:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People remove links to "obvious pyramid schemes" because you are doing original research.   Mdbrownmsw 16:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People removing links to MLMs or pyramid schemes 

message: I'll happily admit to being a newbie, but I think some sections of this article exhibit link clutter and could stand being removed - notably the links to Dinner, Captain and others in the "8-ball" model section. Admittedly a minor nit, so I'm asking for clarification here. 213.162.65.17 15:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just fixed it. I left in gemology but the rest are history. --MagicMoose 16:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce overlinking 

message: Are not all corporate companies gloified pyramid schemes?  True many MLM companies turn out to be scams or they cave after a short period of time because their products are not in high demand, but the fundmental principles of a pyramid scheme are inherent in any corporate company.  There will always be CEOs and stock holders who employ store owners (who have to pay a fee to own a piece of the franchise, I might add), who hire managers, who hire employees.  In every store you see managers and they hire department managers and they hire employees.  That's the way it is in small businesses as well.  I worked for a small bread company a while back and because my boss owned a franchise license part of his earnings went to the Corporate Offices.  Now, working at his company, I could never have his position.  I could never exceed his level or pay, no matter how hard I worked.  I would never own his business.  It's the same with all corporate companies.  I can never become a manager unless the person above me gives up there position entirely or dies.  Even then, my promotion would be politcal, so there is a chance I wouldn't get the position anyway (and most MLM/direct marketing programs promote you by your numbers, not whether they like you or not).  So I don't understand all of the negative hype that surrounds the pyramid scheme when the majority of the world's workers belong to one.  It's not the concept of a MLM company or the concept of direct marketing that is to blame for bad experiences, because in my opinion, they are both very good ideas.  Donald Trump and Robert Kiyosaki agree.  They said so.. look it up.  It's the money horders who abuse a good idea or those you join with a "get rich" attitude who are to blame.  But, even then, you should research the credibility of a company and the people who elong to it before you join on the basis of someone's word.  Besides, not all MLM/Direct Marketing Companies are built the same.  There are some pyramid schemes that are inverted and if you do more work than the person who got you into it you can overcome their position. Trust me, I belong to one. Easiersaid3
REPLY
No, these Corporations PRODUCE ACTUAL PRODUCTS, such as Hamburgers, Widgets, or Lumber.  Pyramid Scams produce nothing only sell 'getting rich'
dude, there are many so called legitimate corporations that sell "nothing" ie information,insurance,cyberspace,radio frequencies other non-material services.24.1.103.99 00:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be pointed out that many pyramid schemes try to confuse people with comparison with corporate structure along with "good" or "services".  The reality is unlike corporations pyramid schemes are dependent on an ever expanding number of "members" to keep the whole thing going.  Some people have gone as far as saying that MLMs are nothing more than legal pyramid schemes as the very nature of the system itself encourages endless recruiting well beyond market saturation point just like you see with a pyramid scheme. (Carroll 2003) (Coenen 2009)--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coporate Companies 

message: I've removed a few claims of examples:
"Another example is a product (such as a dial-up modem purportedly using higher speed and/or using Voice over IP) sold at higher than ordinary retail price for the same or similar products elsewhere."
1) Not a pyramid scheme, just an over-priced product.
2) Original research.
"One example of this type of scheme is XanGo, whose participants purchase bottles of juice at inflated prices on a recurring purchase plan."
1) Not necessarily a pyramid scheme, just a probably over-priced product with dubious health claims.
2) Original research.
Heck, even if you find an actual pyramid scheme (and there are plenty of them out there), you cannot just add them to the article. You need a reliable source that calls it -- specifically -- a pyramid scheme. This article, and its talk page, are not the place for you to warn people about what you believe is a scam or talk about a business that burned you.   Mdbrownmsw 16:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  WP:SOAP.  Dreadstar † 17:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed Examples 

message: This might be a weird point to bring up, but is this article slanted against the subject? I know they're not the most positive business strategies, but more contentious subjects have far more neutral articles. Think of the pyramid scammers. They have feelings too. ALTON .ıl 00:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The legal (and moral) status of Pyramid Schemes/MLM, by nature, makes them a negative. Do we argue that articles such as Murder, Rape, or Theft paint these subjects in a negative light? The positives can be debated, but we need no more maintain NPOV here than we do in the Holocaust article. Facts are facts. 68.166.4.164 (talk) 07:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange POV 

message: I have issue with the section "identifying features" section This section is extremely POV. for example: 
"A highly excited sales pitch (sometimes including props and/or promos)." 
uhh, this is not a characteristic limited or in any way exclusively indicative of any scheme or scam.
also:
"Assurances that it is perfectly legal to participate"
again this is not a feature specific to pyramid schemes or scams.
IN fact this article is rife with POV. the entire section
"Market saturation
Over 90% of the people who get involved in pyramid schemes never recoup their initial investment.
The people on the bottom level of the pyramid, no matter how shallow or deep it goes, will always lose their money. It is easy to see that the number in the bottom level of the pyramid always exceeds the total of all those in the levels above no matter how many levels there are. If each level must recruit six more below them, the ratio of losers to winners is close to 5 to 1 - ~84% of all investors will lose their money. The pyramid in reality would not be perfectly balanced and some members might be able to partially fill their number of recruits, but the same principles apply."
where are the citations? Is it really so easy to "see" how this illustrates that over %90 of the people involved never profit?
The structure of the model does not indicate the potential of anyone within the model failing or succeeding at the pyramid scheme.
 
What is the cause of the pyramid schemes "collapse", I did not find it this description. Is it government,consumer, or competitor hostility? Do they "run out" of customers, or product materials? (is that possible?) Is there a time constraint?
is it a varied circumstance based upon the particular scheme?
I also have a few suggestions for this article.
please define the term pyramid scheme! the description used in this article could he used to define any networked financial enterprise whatsoever. This article could be used to describe an internet access network, such as AOL or Excel(circa 2000) with referral bonuses!
I think in this article there should there be a distinction or correlation drawn between pyramid schemes and pyramid scams since it seems to me that scheme describes a business model and scam describes the effect upon those who are conned. Therefore is it true that all pyramid schemes are scams as well? There are just too many generalizations here. The comparison with MLM business models is not thorough and I think it should be supported by defining a contrast with other business models eg corporate,contractor or LLC models this would further develope the distinction and make it clear. 
Also I think discussion of legality of these business models must be accompanied by definition and reference as to which legal bodies define them as legal or illegal , how and why. for example if the USA is referenced, then the agency that prosecuted or ruled them as such should be referenced as well as what business model is favored and why.
  
I think this article may be a good start at defining this phenomenon but perhaps it is far from complete.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.1.103.99 (talk) 00:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  not enough description of pyramid scheme crash! 

message: There are several issues addressed in the discussion that could benefit from experts.  Some of these issues are:
: 1.  The legality issue.  (We need a lawyer)
: 2.  The "bound to collapse" issue.  (We need a business academic) 
: 3.  The "connection to Egypt" issue discussed up top.  We need an archaeologist (just kidding!)
The overwhelming tone of the article is that pyramid schemes are "non-sustainable" (which is technically true,  using business jargon) and "bound to collapse."  This may be fact, but the point is not supported or explained at all.  For all practical purposes, a "non-sustainable" business may be sustained throughout the founders' entire lifetimes.  In other words, the exponential nature of these schemes may not be as "non-sustainable" as the jargon suggests.  In order to become a "good" article, it needs to be self-contained enough that readers do not have to research "sustainability" in order to have a neutral POV.   We need experts, so I'm tagging the top of the page.  Please help if you can.  (Also, and completely unrelated, the "8-Ball" section smells strongly of original research).  Happy editing. JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 17:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts Needed 

message: This is a continuation of the "POV" discussion hidden above.  The more time I spend with this article, the more it seems to have serious neutrality issues.  I don't think this was done on purpose, rather it is the product of certain attitudes and language use.  "Scheme" itself can be interpreted as a weasel word.  Many of these issues can be addressed by simply operationally defining "pyramid scheme" as an academic term.  Thus, this article in a sense has been changed to "pyramid scheme" as an academic term, not a reflection of the reality of these "schemes."  If for some reason we find it necessary to cover these "schemes" from an alternative perspective, I think we'll need to have two separate articles.  Discussion is encouraged.  JohnnyCalifornia (talk) 19:19, 21 June 2008 (UT
Second that. I also feel that the person(s) that wrote the Charles Ponzi article and the Ponzi scheme article wrote this article as well - the POV issues continue in those also.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.10.3 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Issues 

message: how could anybody be so dumb so as to fall into such a trap?? you're selling and buying not products but recruits! it's obvious that it has no point, and so is not a good idea to invest in it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.31.171.114 (talk) 17:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect Peter, read the article. Legitimate MLMs are not pyramid schemes. Many pyramid schemes call themselves MLM for the very reason that MLMs are legitimate businesses, trying to hide their true nature. That said, I've no idea if your BIL is joining legitimate MLMs or scams calling themselves MLMs. If the latter, then they're not MLMs. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Insider201283, but at least two reliable sources both published by Wiley state that while legal MLMs are pyramid schemes regardless of how they are run.  Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  does this really happen? 

message: In the See Also section there is a link for LGAT, but in the LGAT article there is nothing mentioned about pyramid schemes. What is the connection between those two articles?
Retinoli (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Large Group Awareness Training (LGAT) 

message: I would propose that in its structure the Church of Scientology is much akin to a pyramid scheme. It requires its members to pay large sums of money to progress through the ranks, at which point they may theoretically be paid in turn by newcomers to the institution. Accordingly, I propose that the Church of Scientology be added to the "see also" links. 128.227.127.149 (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting idea, but sounds like OR. Any discussion of this in reliable sources? --Insider201283 (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discussion of this in every non-CoS Scientology source. But, according to the Scientologists, any resource that is not the CoS is immediately "non-reliable." Given that the CoS has taken to policing the internet for anything that is not pro-Scientology, it would be difficult to include a section on Scientology here without ensuring that the article is locked at the same time. Unfortunately, this makes including references to Scientology ANYWHERE on Wikipedia a non-trivial matter. 68.166.4.164 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientology 

message: The controversial case of pyramid case in Colombia should be sourced. Please do not include unverified statements. Please read What Wikipedia is not for guidelines.
Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Colombia

message: The internet section seems to be a misfit right at the top. Surely the first section is for readers to understand what the subject is.
Amspock (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet section 

message: In the third image it says that the red section represents 88.1% of the people. This is false, it represents 88.2%, as is plainly obvious since the blue section represents 11.8% and together they make 100%.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.9.143.240 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please correct the image! 

message: Can someone explain why there is a link to Vector Marketing? I would like some feedback before I remove it. Vector Marketing is not a pyramid scheme. They do encourage recruiting and compensation for some is based on numbers recruited but their operating business cash flow does not rely on an increasing number of salespeople, like a pyramid scheme. It relys on profit from selling Cutco, which is then distributed top-down to the salespeople. This is multi-level marketing and there is already a link to multi-level marketing and in multi-level marketing there is a link to Vector Marketing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.77.203 (talk) 15:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Vector Marketing 

message: I'm currently working on a legal / business definition of a pyramid scheme, for the sake of improving this article. So far, there appears to be three main factors...
- no real product
- the cash goes up the chain
- only those at or close to the top get rich, and the majority lose out.
Currently, a search on "cash gifting" is redirected to this pyramid scheme article, and I think this is erroneous because cash gifting set-ups (at least the better ones) satisfies only one of the above three criteria for a pyramid scheme. 
There is no real product in cash gifting, just like a pyramid scheme. However, there is no huge amount of cash that goes up the chain, and it is thereby impossible for only the top few to get rich; indeed, there is no real 'top' at all!
The better cash gifting schemes that I've researched (from an academic viewpoint) work like this...
John sends an invitation to join to Sara.
Sara can choose the amount she comes in at - that amount affects how much she can receive in the future. She chooses the $1,500 level.
Sara sends $1,250 to John as a gift, with no strings or expectations attached. And she sends the other $250 to Pete, who invited John originally.
Sara sends no more payments, and she gets the bulk of any gift sent by someone she invites.
Pete gets a small percentage of the total gift made my anyone John invites.
And John gets a small percentage of the total gift made by anyone Sara invites.
In other words, the payments made are generally one-off, and the levels up the payments go are limited to 2. In the above transaction, the person who brought in Pete gets nothing, and nor do any of the people "above" him. The only payment made to the 'top' or the 'centre' is a annual admin fee, which should be fairly modest ($50-100).
This may seem a small distinction, but I believe it to be an important one. We may or may not like the idea of people sending cash gifts to other people within a structure, in the hope of getting more back than they put in, but it is a legitimate activity, OK'd by the US courts, and therefore deserves an article of it's own. Any takers??
:Yes, there is some wishful thinking in assuming that "Sara" will get her money back Here is how it probably really goes:
:John sends an invitation to Sara, she gets greedy and thinks the entire thing makes perfect sense, she sends her $1500 (!) dollars to the leeches who "invited" her into the scheme, Sara never hears from "John" again. There is nothing that guarantees her money back whatsoever; no written agreements to show up in court, no knoledge on who "John" is since the internet is anonymous and worst of all she probably won't go to the authorities since she probably "invited" every single relative and friend she has into the scheme.
:Cash gifting is by no means a "legal activity", you are either decieving yourself or just don't know much about it (or you are just a another cash gifting crook). It is legal to gift cash away if it's in a small amount, yet it is ilegal to gift it expecting a return. Cash gifting is also not a legal investment as con artists usually say, as the entire thing is based on false assumptions.--99.192.53.131 (talk) 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pyramid Schemes & Cash Gifting 

message: If anyone has the time, a section on Albania post-Communism would be a good addition to the article.  (I know I am welcome to do it myself, and I may, but right now time is tight.)  There were entire cities in revolt after a huge number of people lost everything in a number of large pyramid schemes.  It is mentioned on an Albanian history page, but no details are given. Boomcoach (talk) 15:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Albania 1996-1997