Talk:Ponzi scheme

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  not got caught 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  proper definition of a Ponzi scheme 

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links 

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

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

text: 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)

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

text: (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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: RfC

message: 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)
thread_title:  Try to explain Ponzi schemes to my natives in Yakutia 

message: 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)
thread_title:  NYU journal article about trustee actions in relation to ponzi schemes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  starting 

message: 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)
thread_title:  No history section 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sarah Howe example just looks like theft