Just to clarify, myself (and others in this thread) are not calling 'scam' - *some* of the posts here are but not all. And I do believe that some of the negative posts are from the competition, no doubt in my mind about that.

The point I was making (and others) is that whilst there is no sign of wrong-doing, at the very least, there is a corporate governance issue which needs to be addressed. It won't go away.

None of the subsequent replies appear to be 'playing-the-ball' on this and are instead trying to play-the-player.

And FYI - you don't need to execute an exit from a scam or ponzi (again, not proposing PPT is such) if the scheme becomes so big, profitable and dare I say it 'un-touchable' there is absolutely no need for an exit. The biggest and best schemes littered down history had no exit plan, they just keep on going until there is an 'event'.

Taking a risk based approach to investment you could argue, if the supposition in the steem video is correct (and it has not been proven that it is), that the risk of such a future 'event' is far higher for PPT than it otherwise should be. This is what good governance helps protects investors from.