@financialadvice Hm. Fair enough if you want to downvote this given the negative connotations you wish to apply to it. That's your perogative after all. I would contend this differs from a Ponzi scheme since its pretty clear from the get-go the following:

1. The model itself does not proclaim you will make any profits that is guaranteed in any way
2. The token itself is sold on a pre-determined escalator and that risk is made known thus putting the transparency out there for potential investors.
3. Return's are not necessarily paid out from the investment of latter investors since income can be directly generated from funds received, and its intention is stated as much.
4. How is this any different than an escalating VC fundraising of a company that eventually goes public? If say Apple sold its shares on set amount of capital raises - ie. Series A financing, Series B financing, etc....
5. We operate in an ecosystem where there activity can spawn returns based on future inflation. As this platform intends to maintain that activity, it becomes a return-generating business with increasing capital the more interest there is in the token itself.
6. Profits until project end only come from selling your stake.
7. The project is run by a proven operator that has contributed to the STEEM ecosystem.

I would argue that the VC model itself is broken if you want to call this a Ponzi Scheme. It's easy to assert something to be a derogatory term without considering the relevant metrics on which it should be judged. But again, to each their own.

In the mean time, I took the risk. You don't have to. But if you want to shut down my freedom to express my opinion on my actions, I find that disappointing.