Talk:Pyramid scheme

Is this original research? Should it be part of the article?

I have reservations over this paragraph in the article:

"Other cons may also be effective. For example, it is fathomable, but not cited or reported anywhere, that rather than using false names, a group of seven people may agree to form the top three layers of a pyramid without investing any money. They then work to recruit eight paying passengers, and pretend to follow the pyramid payout rules, but in reality split any money received. Ironically, though they are being conned, the eight paying passengers are not really getting anything less for their money than if they were buying into a "legitimate" eight-ball scheme which had split off from a parent. They truly are now in a valid eight-ball, and have the same opportunity to earn a windfall if they can successfully recruit enough new members and reach captain"

This sounds to me like original research. The paragraph even blatantly says "not cited or reported anywhere" which clearly implies that its original research and therefore should not be in the article. Any comments on this please? Diamondblade2008 (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"Pyramid schemes are a form of fraud"

I don't see how pyramid schemes can be considered intrinsically fraudulent. Wikipedia defines fraud as; "an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual". In most cases people who participate in pyramid schemes are told of and/or understand the risks involved. In fact, I don't see how anyone can fail to understand the risks! I'm sure everyone who enters is told that they have to recruit members to gain money otherwise there'd be no incentive to recruit new people and every person equipped with what passes for a brain these days can foresee the possibility of not being able to recruit the necessary amount of people. And before you say anything, I've never been in a pyramid scheme although I have been offered by a friend... Gabzlab00 (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

A non fraudulent pyramid scheme would disclose your true position in the pyramid. People know that if they are low down in the pyramid, they are unlikely to get money. So they must be enticed into believing that they are high up. That is the fraud. Your typical chain letter is more honest, because the recipient knows that they are at least at the Xt level of the pyramid, where X is the length of the list. But a truly honest chain letter would label each line as it's added with an incrementing number, so you know, at a glance, how low you would be, and can make an informed decision on whether to buy in after doing a little bit of math. 74.211.58.183 (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Further addition to recent cases

On the news on Radio Four on 7 March 2012, it was announced that two men involved with the biggest pyramid scam in Britain had got into trouble with the law. If any one heard the article on the news and can remember the details, it could go in the article under the "Recent Cases" section. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 11:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme? Bubble?

Neither of these meet the description of a pyramid scheme given in the lede. Seems like a contradiction. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. We have a circular definition, or fundamental misunderstanding. Pyramid scheme is about pay to join, recruit people (usually 2 or more) into the scheme, and get paid when you reach a certain quota (cycle out, fill the matrix, etc.). Each participant is expected to recruit 2 more more. Ponzi scheme is almost always centralized on one person, who does all the recruiting. Individual participants do not recruit, in general. There are hybrid schemes, of course, but these should be the fundamental differences. Kschang77 (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)