Disclaimer:
@financialadvice recently downvoted my post & attempted to get it removed thinking i'm pumping ONECENT. Let me be clear that this is NOT my intent. If you believe ONECENT to be a ponzi scheme, STAY AWAY! There is risk here, absolutely! But I do believe it's far too negatively charged and sensational to label the project this way when you consider how it actually is structured.
Refer to my last post here:
https://steemit.com/steemleo/@videosteemit/i-just-bought-5000-onecent-tokens
STEEMLEO platform is about investment conversation. And whether you believe capital is being intelligently placed or wasted upon investing is entirely a subjective standpoint. So here is my reply to the accusation my on my last post, and I would like to hear your input and get a guage of what others believe.
Here is my arguments as to why I do not believe ONECENT is a ponzi scheme:
- Profits until project end only come from selling your stake.
- The model itself does not proclaim you will make any profits that is guaranteed in any way. It does not promise some kind of guaranteed return from participating.
- The token itself is sold on a pre-determined escalator (ascending sell-walls) and that risk is made known thus putting the transparency out there for potential investors.
- Return's are not directly paid out from the investment of latter investors since income will be generated from funds received, and its intention is stated as much.
- How is this any different than an escalating venture capital ( VC) fundraising of a company that eventually goes public? If say Apple sold its shares on set amount of capital raises - ie. Series A financing, Series B financing, etc....
- We operate in an ecosystem where there activity can spawn returns based on future inflation. As this platform intends to maintain that activity to earn income, it becomes a return-generating business that benefits from increasing capital the more interest there is in the token itself.
- The project is run by a proven operator that has contributed to the STEEM ecosystem.
I would argue that the VC model itself is broken if you want to call this a Ponzi Scheme. It's easy to assert something to be a derogatory term without considering the relevant metrics on which it should be judged. But again, to each their own.
Final Thought
What makes us even consider this to be remotely similar to a ponzi? The fact that early investors benefit from their first-mover advantage? Is that really so uncommon in conventional investing?
I see a structured capital-raising venture with the expectations to continue as long as the community is willing to proceed. Yes, they benefit their earliest investors. But isn't that how things are supposed to function?
What are your thoughts?
Am I entirely off-base? Is it really that easy to dismiss this project altogether as being something deceptively negative?