[
The very definition of a Ponzi scheme is that old investors are paid profits from the (new money) provided by subsequent investors.
Here comes the enlightenment. Thanks. But I didn't say anything about new investors. Go back and re-read. What I stated is that GAW has cleverly created a system to keep their
existing customers, and getting them to reinvest and put more of their own money in.
So, in your informed opinion, GAW is not a Ponzi **only** because the "new money" used to fund profits of the early investors is coming (somewhat) from existing investors rather than new investors?
Wow. Just wow. That is some kind of logic. You got me beat there. It is so obvious. Can't believe I missed that.