Oh, I completely agree. There is no clear singular benefactor to Bitcoin's rise in value, which should invalidate all arguments that Bitcoin is a classic ponzi scheme. People who claim that it's a ponzi mostly classify it as a "mass ponzi" (because purely in essence, it could be loosely construed that new members pay out older members) rather than a classic ponzi scheme though, so I don't think they're overly concerned about the centralization or lack thereof.

We know that argument is bullshit either way though, and there's no point arguing with people who have already decided what they want to believe. People love bending semantics to suit their narratives, so only time will prove us right at this point. Let the naysayers say nay.