Great, great questions.
What is the best argument against the Ponzi scheme narrative?
The first thing you have to tell them is that the definition of “ponzi scheme” or “pyramid scheme” is very strict. In a ponzi scheme, there's a leadership team that
promises high returns and
misleads the public with
wrongful statements regarding an
illegitimate business.
- Is there a leadership team that promised high returns? No, Satoshi or the people who worked to create this innovation didn't promise you anything.
- Have the developers ever lied or misled the public? Nope. Their actions reveal the exact opposite: The software is open source, anyone's allowed to contribute; it promotes free speech.
- Is there an illegitimate business? If we assume that buying and selling bitcoin is a business, then that depends on how you see things. However, I think that the transparency of bitcoin defines objectively that there's nothing illegitimate behind it, by default. If you start manipulating the crowd, then that's you who's problematic and illegitimate.
In what ways are Ponzi schemes different from bitcoin?
The reasons I highlighted.
How do they generate value differently?
The conviction that there's something legitimate while there isn't is what deceivingly gives a ponzi scheme, temporarily,
market value.