My reasoning went like this: If the benefit to participants is solely profits from those further down the chain it will sooner or later collapse - and when it does, by necessity the vast vast majority of participants will lose.
So does every company that is running today, so how do you differentiate a valid business vs a ponzi. What does one use as proof?
I don't think you've understood what I intended to say - or I'm not reading you right...
I was talking of a classic pyramid or MLM model where there is a direct benefit to be gained
from people who are sold to or 'recruited'
by those who recruited them and by those who recruited them etc.
The difference in my eyes between a marketing scheme that is doomed to fail and one that I'd count as constructive commerce is whether the which the vast majority of participants (including and especially the 'bottom layer') have derived value from the initial transaction irrespective of any further profits.
Where this is the case, say if I bought a plastic sandwich box and was happy that the combination of quality/price meant I got good value then it makes no odds whether it was bought from a shop or from an MLM scheme. The only difference is how the profits are split - and that's only of interest if the buyer, in additional to being content with initial purchase value, is interested in further participation by marketing him/herself.
I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying about what I said that is like 'every company that is running today'. I'd be happy to elaborate or does my further explanation clear it up for you?
Note I've not yet brought Bitcoin into the equation. I wanted to try and separate out detrimental and positive aspects of schemes generally classified as 'ponzi' first. Mushing up concepts like greed and fraud and bound-to-fail and profiteering and small numbers making massive money etc. in one emotive word then jumping in on the 'Oh yes it is, Oh no it isn't' pantomime virtually guarantees the discussion can not move forward.
...when the select few profit too much, that will increase the chance of collapse. Just take a look at hostess they gave the executives 300% raises and lowered the workers pay.
I don't understand this sorry. Are you talking about a normal business, a marketing scheme of some sort or something to do with Bitcoin? I don't know of the 'hostess and the executive' example you gave nor what it is meant to illustrate.