I'll be honest, I'm probably much less qualified than you to say whether their money is being well spent. I'm just betting that the investors, who are pretty savvy, do know whether their financials are good. Of course, you're suggesting that the investors are in this because they believe future investors will pay them back, and so on, but I think the people investing in Groupon are doing so for solid reasons.
'Even if you tell the public, "Full disclosure: I'm running a ponzi scheme, you want in?" it's still illegal.'
Someone mentioned in another comment that a Ponzi scheme, by definition, means that people don't know it's a ponzi scheme. The commenter contrasted this to a pyramid scheme, where everyone can know. Is that true?
In any case, I thought it worthwhile to copy this form Wikipedia:
"A bubble: A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme in that one participant gets paid by contributions from a subsequent participant (until inevitable collapse), but it is not the same as a Ponzi scheme. A bubble involves ever-rising prices in an open market (for example stock, housing, or tulip bulbs) where prices rise because buyers bid more because prices are rising. Bubbles are often said to be based on the "greater fool" theory. As with the Ponzi scheme, the price exceeds the intrinsic value of the item, but unlike the Ponzi scheme, there is no person misrepresenting the intrinsic value. With the greater fool theory in mind, some may invest even though they believe the securities are overpriced due to a bubble."
In other words, the only thing that really changes between a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme and a bubble, is that investors think there is actually something of value underlying the investments. Obviously, many people disagree, but I'm not sure that we shouldn't give savvy investors the benefit of the doubt. Especially investors who have a lot more access to proprietary information, and who have had a lot more time to look over Groupon's terms.
* Note: I wrote a lot of things about the definition of a Ponzi scheme which are probably obvious to you. But I'm just now, with all this talk, starting to dig into what these mean exactly, so all of this is new to me.
I'm just betting that the investors, who are pretty savvy, do know whether their financials are good.
You should probably stay far away from Wall St for your own good. The savviness of the investors should be a warning sign, not one that instills trust. Remember, in an IPO, they are the ones on the other side of the handshake. They have every incentive to fool you.
As for your other points. A ponzi scheme is like Bernie Madoff where you pay off early investors with the money from later investors. I don't believe being open with how the money works would change that. Pyramids are usually where members are pressured to get even more members because a percentage of the new hires' sales goes to the person who brought them in. The bottom of the pyramid cannot get their investment back because they run out of "greater fools". It's all a bit confused because if you buy into Groupon you also get ownership of a business which may or may not be worth something.
We really can argue about the semantics of these labels but really what it comes down to for me are these two questions: Is this a healthy business, and have the founders acted in the best interest of the business? To me the answers are I don't think so and absolutely not. I don't trust an executive team that would allow 90% of a non-profitable company's runway to go into their own pocket with my money.
They've acted in their own self interest to which many would say "whatever, it was a fair trade". I want people the people who think that way to realize that sometimes we restrict trades that are "fair" regardless of how stupid you are for getting into them. Roulette is a losing game but it is a fair game. We also restrict and regulate it heavily.
Anyway, I think we're in agreement on this: it's really interesting to talk about. :-)
'Even if you tell the public, "Full disclosure: I'm running a ponzi scheme, you want in?" it's still illegal.'
Someone mentioned in another comment that a Ponzi scheme, by definition, means that people don't know it's a ponzi scheme. The commenter contrasted this to a pyramid scheme, where everyone can know. Is that true?
In any case, I thought it worthwhile to copy this form Wikipedia:
"A bubble: A bubble is similar to a Ponzi scheme in that one participant gets paid by contributions from a subsequent participant (until inevitable collapse), but it is not the same as a Ponzi scheme. A bubble involves ever-rising prices in an open market (for example stock, housing, or tulip bulbs) where prices rise because buyers bid more because prices are rising. Bubbles are often said to be based on the "greater fool" theory. As with the Ponzi scheme, the price exceeds the intrinsic value of the item, but unlike the Ponzi scheme, there is no person misrepresenting the intrinsic value. With the greater fool theory in mind, some may invest even though they believe the securities are overpriced due to a bubble."
In other words, the only thing that really changes between a Ponzi/Pyramid scheme and a bubble, is that investors think there is actually something of value underlying the investments. Obviously, many people disagree, but I'm not sure that we shouldn't give savvy investors the benefit of the doubt. Especially investors who have a lot more access to proprietary information, and who have had a lot more time to look over Groupon's terms.
* Note: I wrote a lot of things about the definition of a Ponzi scheme which are probably obvious to you. But I'm just now, with all this talk, starting to dig into what these mean exactly, so all of this is new to me.