在上一次加密貨幣牛市期間，我與一些我敬佩的人就龐氏騙局的本質發生了爭論，他們是“加密貨幣批評角”播客Bennet Thompson 和Cas Piancey 的聯合主持人，以及化名加密貨幣交易員和叛逆模因製造者Poordart。方案，以及它們與區塊鏈協議的關係。 簡而言之，我試圖論證「龐茲經濟學」在金融領域無所不在，包括加密貨幣。
這是 Node 時事通訊的摘錄，該通訊是 CoinDesk 及其他領域最關鍵的加密貨幣新聞的每日綜述。 您可以在此處訂閱以獲取完整的新聞通訊。
這場爭論是在一位前 CoinDesker 將當時熱門的加密貨幣項目 Ohm 與龐氏騙局進行比較後開始的，該項目旨在引導採用的新穎嘗試。 它的目的是諷刺地肯定 Ohm 的財務激勵措施，如果成功，它可以作為 DeFi 的儲備貨幣，就像美元對世界的作用一樣。 我的對話者對美元是龐氏騙局的想法感到憤怒。 但是，不是嗎？
據我所知，龐茲經濟學並不是一個真正的詞，但它是一種可識別的性質。 當你看到它時你就知道了。 當一個項目透過隱含或明確的財富承諾（無論是否有欺詐）來激勵採用時，該項目就是「龐氏騙局」。 它源自於以查爾斯龐氏 (Charles Ponzi) 命名的正式定義的投資欺詐，龐氏以高回報的承諾引誘投資者，並「劫彼得付保羅」。
另請參閱：詐騙者就是這樣耗盡您的加密錢包的
龐茲經濟學這個術語是由作者羅伯特·菲茨帕特里克（Robert FitzPatrick）在一本關於多層次營銷計劃的書中普及的，《龐茲經濟學：多層次營銷不為人知的故事》，他在書中說，像紐崔萊和安麗這樣的公司的運作方式就像金融金字塔，因為資金主要透過欺騙性的招募技巧，大部分都流向了高層。 由於遊說努力，傳銷在美國是合法的，它提供了銷售產品或服務的合法業務的幌子。
如果你留意的話，類似的龐氏經濟誘因隨處可見。 經濟學家海曼·明斯基（Hyman Minsky）使用「龐氏金融」一詞來描述殭屍企業，這些企業在功能上已死亡，但透過不斷獲得新的資金來源而繼續運作並履行債務承諾。 其他幾位經濟學家認為，如果政府不斷透過發行新債券來償還現有債務，國家債務可能會成為「龐氏遊戲」。
如果資本被用於生產性用途，龐茲經濟學甚至不一定是一件壞事——但它幾乎從定義上來說確實增加了後來採用者的風險水平，除非它是可持續的或不可持續的，否則他們可能會面臨金融體系的崩潰。成功清零。 這是比特幣背後博弈論的一部分，畢竟，人們購買比特幣時通常希望它會隨著時間的推移而變得更有價值，因為它相對於美元保持價值，或者被廣泛採用。
The question is when does ponzinomics cross the line and become legitimately fraudulent? It’s not often the case that crypto scams are called Ponzi schemes when regulators are involved, like in the recent U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indictment of HyperVerse on Monday. After the scam imploded, and authorities got involved, they found Australian “blockchain entrepreneur” Sam Lee operated a scam that defrauded investors of $1.89 billion.
The HyperVerse story has been getting a lot of mainstream attention in part because of the “staggering” figures involved, as U.S. Attorney Erek L Barron put it, but also because of how weird it is. Apparently, Lee and his co-conspirators Brenda Chunga paid an actor to pretend to be a CEO and somehow, likely over Cameo, received endorsements from celebrities including Chuck Norris and Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak.
See also: 6 Kinds of Crypto Scams and How to Avoid Them
Court documents describe HyperVerse (also variously called HyperCapital, HyperFund and HyperNation) as a “pyramid and Ponzi scheme” that attracted investors with the allure of high returns from crypto mining and other false promises including a metaverse. “The only thing that HyperFund mined was its investors’ pockets,” SEC Enforcement Director Gurbir S. Grewal said in a statement.
Obviously, nothing was built with the money that was raked in from around the world. What’s interesting, when considering how Lee and Chunga reportedly spent the money, is that the alleged scheme does not even seem very profitable. Sure, they bought cars, property and designer clothing — but, considering the nominal figure raised, it seems like the HyperVerse Ponzi operated for so long because it paid out incoming revenue to existing users.
The scheme had an MLM component to it, which is how Chunga got involved when she was recruited in 2020 and invested $500. Recruits were promised passive income at a rate of 0.5%-1% per day, or an “accelerated” program. Chunga, one of only six “corporate” presenters, and the only one named besides Lee in the documents, received more than $3.7 million from the HyperFund platform and directly from recruiting investors in the U.S.
Things worked until it didn’t, and eventually unraveled when withdrawals were frozen in 2022. By the end, the promoters were attempting to bilk investments by selling users $10,000 NFTs and promising a “university-level blockchain education.” Very rarely can Ponzi schemes survive, eventually there is no one left to trick. Perhaps that’s another similarity with certain cryptos.
