There is an element of ponzi because none of the actors have an interest to break the cycle. Mutual hallucination might be a better term though.

Like you would think the asset buyers would have an incentive to stop holding the loans and the whole thing would collapse, but because the buyer are investing with other peoples money they are also incentivized to keep the cycle going. The people whose money is eventually going to be lost have no way to stop this because the money is either in a pension fund or they aren’t knowledgeable enough to understand the issue

> none of the actors have an interest to break the cycle

This is collective behaviour. If you discover you’re in a Ponzi scheme, it’s in your interest to get your money out first.

Yeah but here it’s never actually your money and if the cycle breaks you are screwed anyway. If you fail with everyone else then you can say that nobody could have ever predicted this.

> If you discover you’re in a Ponzi scheme, it’s in your interest to get your money out first.

You can either cut your losses and not get your money back (if you're an ethical operator), of you can actively or passively allow other people topit in their money so you can get yours out first. There are similarities where rational vested actors want the charade to continue for a little while longer - the more money you put in, the longer your commitment to the mirage is.

Can we call it ponzi pyramid? Or speculative pyramid?

I agree this isn't a scheme, as it wasn't done out of maliciousness, but it share so much property with it (including who will have to hold the bag) that I kinda like the image.

maybe the latter?

the Ponzi in Ponzi scheme refers to a specific person, and the scheme in Ponzi scheme refers to the specific scheme that specific person executed