> People should be a little smarter and not fall for Ponzi schemes

Blaming the victims is not a solution.

This logic can be applied to justify stopping punishing any crime (“well, they should have stayed at home if they did not want to get mugged”, “they should know better than leave their house for the week if they did not want to get burglarised”, etc).

The victim-perpetrator binary is a false dilemma. Courts recognize contributory negligence in car accidents, why shouldn't they recognize them for self-inflicted financial harms in which one was aware or should have been aware of the risks?

So you’re going with victim blaming as your defense here?

I don't think you understand how scams work. They're engineered so that somebody will fall for them. If we made everybody 10% smarter, scammers would just make their scams 10% cleverer.

I also think a linear "smartness" model misses it. Both intelligence and knowledge are multidimensional. Everybody has strengths and weaknesses, and well-run scams target particular weaknesses.

I'm assuming you are actually a troll, or maybe you haven't actually looked beyond the headline. Many "schemes" are very legitimate looking, offering modest returns. At the moment with very low bank deposit even a 10% investment fund is attractive. Also vulnerable often cannot distinguish good will from good acting by purveyors.

Just recently it has come to light that a crooked funeral fund here in Australia has been preying on indigenous people for years with no prospect on their deposits being returned