We don't need to make this general comment on every specific Bitcoin thread. A pyramid scheme requires a central actor to run the scheme, Bitcoin has none. This article is specifically about the author's opinion of what "price" and "market cap" mean in the context of Bitcoin.
A Ponzi scheme's definition relies even more on a central actor, meaning Bitcoin by definition, is not one. The author of the article you linked to makes this clear, and goes on to make false claims.
>it promises insane investment returns
Nothing in the Bitcoin spec promises insane investment returns, internet comments saying "buy bitcoin!" are not part of the Bitcoin spec. This is vastly different than a Ponzi and hard to link to Bitcoin itself, even abstractly.
Again, the author relies on many false truths and abstract concepts:
>turning every victim of the scheme into a new principal as they talk up their books for the purpose of recruiting new investors to subsidize their exits
If 1 person has bought Bitcoin or suggested another buy it for any reason other than driving up the price, this is instantly false.
In pyramid and Ponzi schemes, the scheme is not abstract, it is run by actual people. The endlessly rehashed argument that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme relies on these actors being represented by abstract notions, like comments on a message board.
Yes they do, they require operators and recruiters, which have a specific meaning and do not exist in Bitcoin in any sense other than an abstract one. Your comment would not be out of place on a post titled "Is Bitcoin a pyramid scheme?" but it is a generic re-hashed comment that has little to do with the specific content here.
