No definitely ponzi. Maybe a central authority is in the definition for ponzi, but I think this is exactly Ponzi without a CA. The whole thing isn't fraud or manipulation because again there is no one single owner, though looking at all the junk on social media there is definitely lots of both.

> this is exactly Ponzi without a CA

Which would be...not a Ponzi Scheme. What makes you say that besides "junk on social media?"

Honestly I think BTC matches this definition - just there is no organizer. Esp the last paragraph.

https://www.investor.gov/introduction-investing/investing-ba...

> there is no organizer

So...not a Ponzi Scheme, by the definition you linked to

> Ponzi used funds from new investors to pay fake “returns” to earlier investors

> they use money from new investors to pay earlier investors and may steal some of the money for themselves

There is no "Ponzi," no "they," no one "paying" anyone directly, no "stealing." It's about as far from a Ponzi Scheme as you can imagine. It's The Wizard of Lies without de Niro.

If I go online and post "Apple stock is great!" and it makes someone buy AAPL, and I profit off that as a shareholder, is that a Ponzi scheme? No?

Well BTC is that but without even the business to hold stock in. How could you possibly argue that was a Ponzi Scheme unless, say, you didn't know what that was before you googled it...