You are involved in the ponzi scheme by way of investigating it. I was involved by coincidentally helping to expose its collapse. Theymos was involved by way of hosting the forum. Hundreds of users were involved tangentially. This is not tantamount to wrongdoing no matter how much you struggle to manufacture that appearance.
None of this is nearly the same as collecting funds to be deposited into what apparently everybody knew was a Ponzi scheme, Og included.
Could it be that nobody complained afterward because everybody knew what they were getting themselves into at the beginning?
We really don't know the specifics because we don't know what was contained in Exhibit 3, other than the name "OgNasty" next to an amount of BTC on a spreadsheet. The number may have been 1,000, it may have been 2,600+ -- we don't know for sure. We also don't know if it reflected Og's personal investment or all the BTC collected from investors, or both.
Its true that all this is well in the past and doesn't really matter anymore from a legal standpoint, but it still demonstrates behavior that is pretty far from trustworthy. The fact that Og won't comment on what Shavers was talking about in his testimony only makes things worse.