In ALL TRANSACTIONS, payment is only possible from funds of someone else paying you. That's the DEFINITION OF A FINANCIAL TRANSACTION.
You seem to like to say:
"Look, someone paid someone, in a Ponzi people pay people, therefore it is a Ponzi!"
Then when someone points out that there are lots of reasons that people pay people, and that they are not all Ponzi, you respond with:
"Those examples are beside the point. In those examples, someone paid someone and since they were paid it's ok. But in Bitcoin someone pays someone, and in Ponzi someone pays someone, therefore Bitcoin is a Ponzi!"
It's circular nonsense that carries no meaning. Yes, in a scam, a person is convinced to give another person something of value. That is NOT what makes it a scam. People give other people things of value all the time in situations that are not a scam. Until you can understand this, you aren't going to get anywhere in this conversation.
One cannot be paid by someone that does not exist. What matters is that holders should not expect to be paid by anyone for holding. It is not an "investment" into a business. It does not pay "dividends" or "interest". It is inflationary money that will eventually become deflationary.
There you go saying words again that don't make sense, and that are contradictory.
When an instrument issuer pays divided, interest, principal or non-monetary value to an instrument holder this is not market transaction but the fulfilment of issuer's obligation.
On the other hand, market transaction is an instance of buying or selling something.
Finally, Ponzi-like is when you invest funds into some project or instrument that pays returns not from project's activity or funds of the instrument issuer, but from the funds of new investors. Bitcoin perfectly fits that definition.