The author makes a strong case that Jetsmarter is a stupid idea, but not that it's a Ponzi scheme per se.

That's hyperbolic and unfair. It appears Jetsmarter is a terrible idea and investors will lose out--but not because it's a Ponzi scheme.

Is it really a ponzi scheme? Sounds just like any other startup mentioned here where they burn a tonne of cash while working out how to be profitable. Just because they don't make money now and there is a shortfall doesn't mean it will always be that way. Maybe they believe eventually prices will fall due to the volume, or people will continue buying membership but not use it as much etc.

Unlimited-consumption pricing for products that burn oil are terrible for investors, but seem to be great for customers, while it lasts.

Article is written by a competitor threatened by Jetsmarter's business.

Also, no mention of netjets.com which has been running a jet-sharing business for 50 years

This is "sharing seats on the same jet", vs "getting to use a whole jet, sometimes." NetJets isn't really comparable.

Is Uber a ponzi scheme? Good Lord was Amazon a ponzi scheme?

Sorry couldn't resist being snarky I am getting a bit tired of hyperbole/clickbait