__Are you already satisfied (or bored) with the Steemit Debate?__
## I think that, __because of limited time answers__, the speakers were __unable to explain themselves__ and to __fully reply to all questions__. ##

###  Before starting, please take note that if I use the word _Ponzi_ it's not to defame or accuse anyone, but just because it was one of the main topic discussed in the Debate ### 
(so please don't get upset or offended and don't jump to conclusions too fast)  

https://dab1nmslvvntp.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/debate.jpg
_image from [sitepoint.com](https://www.sitepoint.com/sxswi-the-great-spec-work-debate/)_

__But before I get into the core of my post, I will start with the defense of the two speakers__

## in defense of @blakemiles84 ##
* __It is always harder to be PRO some resolution__ and play the __constructive role in a discussion__ (and it was the Blake position in the debate)
* __after I was quite critic and doubtful towards his speech__ [in this post](https://steemit.com/steemit/@andrew0/the-great-steemit-debate-why-tone-persuaded-me-much-more-than-blakemiles84) he managed to __give me his personal feedback__ , still __remaining cool and friendly__  and showing genuine interest towards my statements

## in defense of Tone Vays ##
* he was accused of being __closed-minded and conservative__ and to bring the __Ponzi accusation without really understanding the Steemit system__ (but he did bring some real arguments to state what he said, even if there was not enough time to really reply to them)
* he was condemned for saying __"I don't think there's that many smart people in crypto"__ but I think that this statement is not enough to think that any other argument he brought was false

# The SEC document about Ponzi scheme definition #
Tone showed a web page about the __7 warning signs to identify a Ponzi scheme__.
I asked him (after the debate) to __give me the link to this document__, which is by the __Security Exchange Commission__ and you can find __[here](http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm)__

__Let's check the warning signs one by one__:

## Warning sign # 1  - High investment returns with little or no risk ##
> __High investment returns with little or no risk.__ Every investment carries some degree of risk, and investments yielding higher returns typically involve more risk. Be highly suspicious of any "guaranteed" investment opportunity.

__This is the only one which had a reply by Blake__: he said that it was not the Steemit situation because spending time and effort to write good content may be a risk too (I agree on that).

### But if you go to the Steemit home page, with Trending Posts displayed (and thousands dollars earning for each of them), you may have the *perception* that you can earn easy money with little or no effort ###

Fortunately, __no "guaranteed" investment promise__ on Steemit.

## Warning sign # 2 - Overly consistent returns ##
> __Overly consistent returns__. Investment values tend to go up and down over time, especially those offering potentially high returns. Be suspect of an investment that continues to generate regular, positive returns regardless of overall market conditions.

__I don't know about this one__, just decide by yourself if it may apply to Steemit platform (we have __three different tokens__ so it's not easy to have a clear idea for me).

## Warning sign # 3 - Unregistered investments ##
> __Unregistered investments__. Ponzi schemes typically involve investments that have not been registered with the SEC or with state regulators. Registration is important because it provides investors with access to key information about the company's management, products, services, and finances.

Just because __I don't believe in State regulations__, I will ignore this point and carry on (but you can investigate if Steemit registered somewhere, I'm not concerned with it anyway)

## Warning sign # 4 - Unlicensed sellers ##
> __Unlicensed sellers__. Federal and state securities laws require investment professionals and their firms to be licensed or registered. Most Ponzi schemes involve unlicensed individuals or unregistered firms.

To me it's similar to # 3 so no further comment about that, but __if you think it may be important, investigate by yourself__.

## Warning sign # 5 - Secretive and/or complex strategies ##
> __Secretive and/or complex strategies__. Avoiding investments you do not understand, or for which you cannot get complete information, is a good rule of thumb.

This one is interesting to me. __The Steemit strategy is quite complex__ (even if not secretive) __also for the minority of users who managed to read the full Whitepaper__, and even more complex for those who didn't!

## Warning sign # 6 - Issues with paperwork ##
> Issues with paperwork. Do not accept excuses regarding why you cannot review information about an investment in writing. Also, account statement errors and inconsistencies may be signs that funds are not being invested as promised.

This can be __quite controversial__. Paperwork may be intended also as __digital documents__ (we are in 2016) but you can decide by yourself.

## Warning sign # 7 - Difficulty receiving payments ##
> __Difficulty receiving payments__. Be suspicious if you do not receive a payment or have difficulty cashing out your investment. Keep in mind that Ponzi scheme promoters routinely encourage participants to "roll over" investments and sometimes promise returns offering even higher returns on the amount rolled over.

This may be a crucial point, because of the __2 years delay to receive full amount of STEEM Power__.
In this case, __if a Ponzi scheme existed, will be so only for people who put some real money into the STEEM Power token__.

http://www.adweek.com/fishbowldc/files/2010/12/fonzie_henry_winkler_happy_days.jpg?red=dc
_did you say Fonzi? image credit [here](https://www.npmjs.com/package/fonzie)_

## My final conclusions ##
* I didn't see __any comment or post analyzing those 7 signs, before replying to Tone criticism__

* Sometimes __being too enthusiastic and excited about new technologies__ can bring to a __wrong conclusions__ and __superficial certainties__  

* I read __many comments and posts about Steemit being not a Ponzi__ but __none of them referred to a Ponzi definition to decide if it was Ponzi or not__ - for example read __[this post](https://steemit.com/steemit/@churdtzu/the-steemit-ponzi-scheme-discussion-some-common-questions)__ (an excellent post indeed, which clarified to me many things)

* there's quite a __big confusion between Ponzi and plain scam__ - that's why you need to  __start from a clean definition of what a Ponzi is__ before deciding what is Ponzi and what is not

* when Tone says that __"I don't think there's that many smart people in crypto"__ is somehow right (and __I consider myself being part of the Crypto community__). 
If we compare the experience and smartness of __old fashioned finance and trading__ to the one of the Crypto community we will see that here there is still __a lot to learn and improve__ (and I think this is true also for myself).

## So, what do I think about Steem? ##
There's a comment by @tie-warutho which sums up what I really think:
> __I wouldn't be so quick to say its "impossible" for STEEM to be a Ponzi scheme as some people are doing in the comments. Obviously I am a STEEM user. If I was convinced STEEM is a Ponzi, I wouldn't be here.__

What I personally think is that __accusing something to be a Ponzi is something very unpleasant__, and __it was already done with Bitcoin too__.

So __we have to be very careful__ and __fully investigate__ before jumping to any conclusion!
__I currently TRUST the Steemit platform__ but this doesn't mean I want to be blind or iper-optimistic.

# Final advice to all you Steemers #
### My final advice is: always be cautious before investing time and money; investigate and learn! ###

__When you invest, there is always a risk involved__, don't let your enthusiasm for new and cool stuff blind you. __Don't be so fast to jump to hasty conclusions!__

## So please  leave your opinion on that, it's much appreciated! ##