Literally the entire point of the comment you replied to, like making exactly that point.

Like; it’s not saying it’s a Ponzi scheme, it’s saying that this does everything a Ponzi scheme does, but with an extremely overvalued product, instead of no product at all.

so we don’t have a name for this type of fraud specifically, and we’re not calling it a Ponzi scheme because that, as we established, means something else. But it works very similarly, in the logistical sense. So much so that we can succinctly describe it - not by enumerating all the things it is - but instead juxtaposing it against a Ponzi scheme and establishing that it’s the same except if you change this one thing.

Perhaps we should name it instead? Like a Fauxnzi scheme? Like pronounce it like Fonzie so it’ll catch on with boomers? I mean maybe Henry Winkler doesn’t deserve all that but it’s descriptive no?

Yeah, that's the point.