Interesting...could you explain exactly how is his scheme being dishonest?
Seriously? How many ways do I need to explain it?
Actually, no, I take that back shefchenko, thank you! You've just proved to me that even when somebody claims to be fully-informed about a ponzi scheme they *still* can fail to understand it properly.
The issue has always been that your scheme cannot be honest as long as there is a chance that a participant may not be fully-informed about how it functions.
Do you see how you fail at this? Your scheme can *never* be 'honest' as long as random internet strangers can be incited to participate.
As long as there is a chance that the operator will knowingly take money from participants who might not properly understand the system then those who operate the scheme and those who willingly accept a share of the money from this inherently flawed process are doing so dishonestly when they claim it is an 'honest' ponzi.
If you cannot ensure 100% fully-informed participation, which you cannot as already proven, then you cannot claim your ponzi to be an honest system because it may contain funds from people who would otherwise not have sent them, had they actually fully understood what the scheme was.