{ "model": { "rank": 6503, "code": "thing-q219407", "model_id": "vr.tr.ponzi-scheme", "name": "Ponzi scheme", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise evidence of a Ponzi scheme, assess its dependence on incoming investor funds and distinguish justified protective actions from conclusions that require further investigation.", "family": "Thing Registry", "category": "Information and virtual systems", "status": "research-draft", "kind": "thing", "plane": "INF", "domain": "INF.KNW", "industry": "", "version": "", "url": "/models/thing/q219407/", "tier": 2, "score": 60, "payload": { "layer": "wikidata", "aliases": [ "high-yield investment program" ], "aliasCount": 1, "merged": 1, "knownIn": 60, "facets": null, "markers": [], "lexicalClass": "", "senseRank": null, "alsoRegisteredAs": null, "source": { "dataset": "wikidata", "item": "Q219407", "url": "https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q219407", "license": "CC0 1.0" } }, "research": { "vercy": "1.0-draft", "publication": { "status": "research-draft", "adjudicationStatus": "unreviewed", "publishableCanonical": false, "generatedAt": "2026-09-07T15:00:05Z", "providers": [ "Codex", "Grok" ], "missingProviders": [], "pass": 2, "cost": { "grok": { "usd": 0.00785366, "turns": 1, "seconds": 125.1, "error": null }, "codex": { "seconds": 90.1, "error": "Reading additional input from stdin...\nOpenAI Codex v0.153.3\n--------\nworkdir: R:\\02_PROJECTS\\02_Meta_Models_Platforms\\Ver.cy\\current\\thing-registry-backlog\nmodel: gpt-6-astra\nprovider: openai\napproval: never\nsandbox: read-only\nreasoning effort: none\nreasoning summaries: none\nsession id: 01a07c5d-bd17-79b0-9003-6946d7da440a\n--------\nuser\nYou are drafting a Vercy meta-model for one registered thing. Answer as JSON only, no prose around it.\n\nThing: Ponzi scheme\nRegistry id: vr.tr.ponzi-scheme\nPlane / domain: INF / INF.KNW\nRegistry definition: (none recorded)\nNames folded into this entry: (none)\n" } } }, "metaModel": { "id": "THING-Q219407", "registryId": "vr.tr.ponzi-scheme", "name": "Ponzi scheme", "version": "0.1.0-research.1", "entryKind": "thing", "family": "Thing Registry", "domain": [ "INF.KNW" ], "status": "research-draft" }, "canonicalUrl": "https://ver.cy/models/thing/q219407/", "model": { "registry_id": "vr.tr.ponzi-scheme", "name": "Ponzi scheme", "purpose": "Enable an AI agent to recognise evidence of a Ponzi scheme, assess its dependence on incoming investor funds and distinguish justified protective actions from conclusions that require further investigation.", "definition": "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud in which an operator pays purported returns to earlier participants from newly contributed capital rather than from profits of a genuine underlying activity, thereby concealing insolvency until inflows can no longer meet payout and redemption claims.", "scope_statement": "This model owns the assessment of an investment arrangement suspected or established to fund purported investment returns through incoming investor money while misrepresenting the source or sustainability of those returns, including its operating mechanism, evidence, dependencies and intervention state.", "in_scope": [ "Investment promises and representations about how returns are generated", "Tracing investor contributions into purported returns, withdrawals and other uses", "Dependence on continued subscriptions or retained investor balances", "Operator control, concealment and investor-facing account representations", "Evidence supporting or challenging the Ponzi classification", "Scheme operating state and constraints on protective intervention" ], "out_of_scope": [ "The full legal and organisational model of participating people and entities", "General investment valuation, portfolio construction and market risk", "Pyramid compensation structures without an investment-return funding mechanism", "Detailed criminal proceedings, liability findings and sentencing", "Insolvency administration, creditor priority and recovery distribution", "Bank account, payment network and transaction infrastructure specifications" ], "distinguishing_features": [ "Determine whether purported investment returns are funded by incoming investor contributions rather than the investment activity represented to investors; poor performance or losses alone do not establish this mechanism.", "Compare disclosed funding arrangements with actual payment sources: openly disclosed borrowing, capital distributions or pooled cash management are not sufficient by themselves to establish a Ponzi scheme.", "Test whether the promised returns and withdrawals require continued investor inflows after accounting for independently verified assets, operating income and liabilities; temporary illiquidity alone is insufficient.", "Distinguish investment-return payments from rewards primarily earned through recruitment, while allowing evidence that an arrangement combines Ponzi and pyramid mechanisms.", "Separate unsupported account gains from realised external investment income: an account statement or a successful withdrawal does not independently verify the claimed source of returns." ], "characteristics": [ { "name": "Classification confidence", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "unassessed | suspected | supported by traced evidence | formally determined | inconclusive | contradicted", "why_it_matters": "Prevents warning signs, investigative conclusions and formal determinations from being treated as equivalent." }, { "name": "Represented return mechanism", "kind": "category", "unit_or_values": "trading | lending | operating business | asset appreciation | mixed | other stated mechanism | unspecified", "why_it_matters": "Defines the claim against which actual funding and investment activity must be checked." }, { "name": "Investor-funded return share", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Percentage of purported return payments attributable to investor contributions over a stated period, with attribution method and uncertainty", "why_it_matters": "Measures the suspected substitution of investor principal for represented investment earnings." }, { "name": "Verified external income coverage", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Ratio of verified net income from represented investment activity to purported returns paid over the same period; unknown where evidence is insufficient", "why_it_matters": "Tests whether the represented activity can explain payments without relying on new subscriptions." }, { "name": "Withdrawal funding gap", "kind": "measurement", "unit_or_values": "Currency amount by date and scenario, calculated from obligations due and verified funds available without new investor contributions", "why_it_matters": "Shows immediate dependence on continued inflows while keeping assumptions about asset availability explicit." }, { "name": "Representation-to-evidence mismatch", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "not assessed | materially consistent | materially inconsistent | conflicting evidence | unverifiable", "why_it_matters": "Separates an unusual funding pattern from evidence that investors were misled about it." }, { "name": "Control over funds and records", "kind": "relation", "unit_or_values": "Actors linked to powers to receive, transfer, approve, value, report or independently verify investor funds", "why_it_matters": "Identifies who can operate the mechanism and whether purported checks are independent." }, { "name": "Withdrawal fulfilment", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "paid as agreed | selectively paid | delayed | restricted | suspended | unknown, with observation period", "why_it_matters": "Captures payment stress without treating continued payouts as proof of legitimacy." }, { "name": "Operating phase", "kind": "state", "unit_or_values": "soliciting | receiving funds and paying | under stress | payments stopped | under intervention | closed | unknown; phases may overlap", "why_it_matters": "Connects evidence about current activity to the urgency and availability of protective actions." } ], "affordances": [ "Compare investment promises with independently evidenced sources of payouts.", "Trace contributions and withdrawals while recording uncertainty in attribution.", "Assess payment capacity under reduced or stopped investor inflows.", "Identify missing evidence and competing explanations before assigning a classification.", "Record changes in solicitation, withdrawals and intervention status.", "Prepare evidence-linked alerts or referrals and identify protective actions available to an authorised actor." ] }, "sources": [ { "id": "sec-investor-gov-ponzi", "title": "Ponzi Scheme", "url": "https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/types-fraud/ponzi-scheme", "what_it_supports": "Regulator definition, red flags (unusually consistent returns, unregistered products, secrecy), and the distinction from legitimate pooled investment.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "fbi-ponzi", "title": "Ponzi Schemes", "url": "https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-scams-and-crimes/ponzi-schemes", "what_it_supports": "Criminal-investigation framing: use of new investor money to pay earlier investors; typical solicitation channels.", "url_status": "blocked" }, { "id": "zuckoff-2005", "title": "Ponzi's Scheme: The True Story of a Financial Legend", "url": "", "what_it_supports": "Historical origin (Charles Ponzi, 1920, postal-reply-coupon story), cash-flow mechanics, and collapse pattern." }, { "id": "frankel-2012", "title": "The Ponzi Scheme Puzzle: A History and Analysis of Con Artists and Victims", "url": "", "what_it_supports": "Typology of operators and victims, affinity targeting, and why reported returns stay smooth until the break." }, { "id": "sec-madoff-2008", "title": "SEC Charges Bernard L. Madoff for Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme (Litigation Release / complaint, 11 December 2008)", "url": "", "what_it_supports": "Canonical large-scale example: fabricated advisory returns, no real trading sufficient to support reported profits, collapse on redemption pressure." } ], "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "promised-investment-and-investor-belief", "name": "Promised investment and investor belief", "description": "Records what investors were told their money would do and what their reported returns meant.", "rationale": "A Ponzi assessment must establish the represented investment mechanism and compare it with actual conduct.", "layers": [ { "id": "return-and-principal-promises", "name": "Return and principal promises", "description": "Captures the economic commitments made to investors at identifiable times.", "findings": [ { "id": "represented-source-of-returns", "name": "Represented source of returns", "description": "Establishes the activity claimed to generate returns, including qualifications and changes in the claim.", "questions": [ { "text": "What activity was said to generate returns, and what return rate, payment schedule and principal protections were represented?", "kind": "definition", "id": "represented-source-of-returns-q01" }, { "text": "Which dated contracts, presentations or communications establish those representations for each affected investor group?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "represented-source-of-returns-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "meaning-of-account-balances", "name": "Meaning of account balances", "description": "Distinguishes what investors understood they owned from what statements and balances actually represented.", "findings": [ { "id": "reported-gains-and-disclosures", "name": "Reported gains and disclosures", "description": "Examines whether account gains and payments were described as earned income, asset appreciation or a return of contributed capital.", "questions": [ { "text": "Were reported gains and payouts identified as investment profits, unrealised valuations, capital distributions or something else?", "kind": "definition", "id": "reported-gains-and-disclosures-q01" }, { "text": "What was disclosed about using subscriptions or other investors' funds for payments, and how did actual practice compare?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "reported-gains-and-disclosures-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "actual-payout-funding", "name": "Actual payout funding", "description": "Establishes where paid returns and withdrawals came from and whether represented investments explain them.", "rationale": "The source of payouts is central to distinguishing a Ponzi mechanism from other losses, frauds or liquidity problems.", "layers": [ { "id": "contribution-to-payout-tracing", "name": "Contribution-to-payout tracing", "description": "Connects incoming investor funds to outgoing payments without assuming that timing alone proves attribution.", "findings": [ { "id": "investor-money-used-as-returns", "name": "Investor money used as returns", "description": "Records evidence that contributions funded payments represented as investment returns.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which account records connect investor contributions to purported return payments, including transfers through intermediaries?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "investor-money-used-as-returns-q01" }, { "text": "What amount or range of purported returns is attributable to contributions during the assessed period, and how does the tracing method handle commingled funds?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "investor-money-used-as-returns-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "verification-of-investment-activity", "name": "Verification of investment activity", "description": "Tests the existence, ownership and earnings of assets or operations offered as the source of returns.", "findings": [ { "id": "independently-supported-earnings", "name": "Independently supported earnings", "description": "Separates verified investment income and accessible assets from operator assertions and fabricated or unsupported balances.", "questions": [ { "text": "What independent custody, counterparty or operating records substantiate the claimed assets and net earnings?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "independently-supported-earnings-q01" }, { "text": "How much of the purported return payments can verified investment earnings explain over a comparable period?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "independently-supported-earnings-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "inflow-dependence-and-payment-stress", "name": "Inflow dependence and payment stress", "description": "Assesses how subscriptions, reinvestment and withdrawal behaviour sustain or destabilise payments.", "rationale": "Current payouts can conceal a funding deficit; the model must assess dependence on future investor behaviour.", "layers": [ { "id": "funding-without-new-investors", "name": "Funding without new investors", "description": "Evaluates obligations against verified resources under explicit inflow assumptions.", "findings": [ { "id": "no-new-money-payment-capacity", "name": "No-new-money payment capacity", "description": "Records whether obligations can be met without further contributions, accounting for timing and access restrictions.", "questions": [ { "text": "If new contributions stopped, what obligations would fall due and what verified funds would be available on those dates?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "no-new-money-payment-capacity-q01" }, { "text": "Could a shortfall be explained by ordinary asset illiquidity or maturity mismatch, and what evidence distinguishes that explanation from misrepresented funding?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "no-new-money-payment-capacity-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "withdrawal-and-retention-behaviour", "name": "Withdrawal and retention behaviour", "description": "Tracks actual payment performance and practices that defer cash outflows.", "findings": [ { "id": "withdrawal-friction-and-selective-payment", "name": "Withdrawal friction and selective payment", "description": "Examines delays, selective payouts and incentives to retain balances as observations requiring explanation.", "questions": [ { "text": "How do requested and completed withdrawals compare by date, amount and investor group, including unpaid requests?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "withdrawal-friction-and-selective-payment-q01" }, { "text": "What evidence links reinvestment incentives, changed withdrawal conditions or selective payments to available cash and investor inflows?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "withdrawal-friction-and-selective-payment-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "control-and-concealment", "name": "Control and concealment", "description": "Records who controls investor funds, creates performance claims and can verify or challenge those claims.", "rationale": "Understanding control and evidence independence helps explain how the suspected mechanism operates and where claims can be tested.", "layers": [ { "id": "fund-and-record-control", "name": "Fund and record control", "description": "Maps effective authority over custody, transfers and investor reporting.", "findings": [ { "id": "concentrated-or-conflicted-control", "name": "Concentrated or conflicted control", "description": "Identifies overlapping powers and dependencies without assuming that concentration alone proves fraud.", "questions": [ { "text": "Who can move investor money, approve withdrawals and alter reported balances, including through related entities?", "kind": "definition", "id": "concentrated-or-conflicted-control-q01" }, { "text": "Which records demonstrate whether custodians, administrators and performance verifiers are independent of those controlling the funds?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "concentrated-or-conflicted-control-q02" } ] } ] }, { "id": "manufactured-investment-credibility", "name": "Manufactured investment credibility", "description": "Examines representations used to make unsupported investment performance appear verified.", "findings": [ { "id": "credibility-claims-against-evidence", "name": "Credibility claims against evidence", "description": "Checks statements, endorsements and verification claims against their actual evidential support.", "questions": [ { "text": "Which performance statements, custody claims or audit claims conflict with records obtained from their purported originators?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "credibility-claims-against-evidence-q01" }, { "text": "Are successful withdrawals or participant endorsements being treated as proof of investment earnings, and what independent evidence supports that inference?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "credibility-claims-against-evidence-q02" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-protective-action", "name": "Classification and protective action", "description": "Connects the supported mechanism and current operating state to bounded decisions by identified actors.", "rationale": "An agent must express what is established, preserve competing explanations and act within its authority.", "layers": [ { "id": "classification-boundaries", "name": "Classification boundaries", "description": "Separates warning signs, traced mechanisms and formal findings while checking neighbouring explanations.", "findings": [ { "id": "supported-ponzi-assessment", "name": "Supported Ponzi assessment", "description": "States the classification, its evidence and unresolved alternatives for a specified period.", "questions": [ { "text": "What evidence supports or contradicts the combination of investor-funded purported returns and misrepresentation about their source or sustainability?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "supported-ponzi-assessment-q01" }, { "text": "Does the evidence instead or additionally support disclosed capital distributions, an unsuccessful investment, misappropriation or recruitment-based pyramid compensation?", "kind": "boundary", "id": "supported-ponzi-assessment-q02" }, { "text": "Who made any formal determination, on what date, and which arrangement, period and actors does it cover?", "kind": "provenance", "id": "supported-ponzi-assessment-q03" } ] } ] }, { "id": "operating-state-and-response", "name": "Operating state and response", "description": "Records ongoing exposure and the authority needed for evidence preservation, alerts or restrictions.", "findings": [ { "id": "authorised-protective-next-step", "name": "Authorised protective next step", "description": "Connects current solicitation and payment activity to a proportionate, evidence-linked response.", "questions": [ { "text": "Is the arrangement still soliciting contributions, accepting funds or processing withdrawals, and how recently was each activity verified?", "kind": "measurement", "id": "authorised-protective-next-step-q01" }, { "text": "Which actor has authority to preserve records, pause activity under its control or refer evidence, and what evidence threshold governs each action?", "kind": "action", "id": "authorised-protective-next-step-q02" }, { "text": "What unresolved evidence would materially change the proposed action, and how can an authorised actor obtain it?", "kind": "action", "id": "authorised-protective-next-step-q03" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "evidence-and-external-alignment", "name": "Evidence and external alignment", "description": "What the world already says about this thing, gathered so the model can be checked against it.", "rationale": "A model that cannot be lined up against existing standards, identifiers and practice cannot be adopted by anyone who already uses them.", "layers": [ { "id": "reported-evidence", "name": "Reported evidence", "description": "Findings from the breadth pass, kept separate from the structural claims.", "findings": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds", "name": "Kinds and varieties", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Classic discretionary-account or pooled-fund Ponzi (operator reports fabricated trading or advisory profits)", "Affinity Ponzi (sold inside a religious, ethnic, professional, or immigrant community)", "High-yield investment program / unregistered promissory-note Ponzi", "Cryptocurrency, token, staking, or 'trading-bot' Ponzi", "Real-estate development, guaranteed-rent, or construction-deposit Ponzi", "Prime-bank, secret 'roll program', or high-yield-note Ponzi", "Insurance, annuity, pension, or benefit-fund Ponzi", "Postal-reply-coupon / arbitrage-story Ponzi (the 1920 Charles Ponzi pattern)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-kinds-q01", "text": "Which of these kinds and varieties hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-identifiers", "name": "Identifiers and schemes", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "scheme": "Wikidata", "value_or_pattern": "Q154920", "note": "Item 'Ponzi scheme'." }, { "scheme": "Library of Congress Subject Headings", "value_or_pattern": "Ponzi schemes", "note": "Authorized subject heading used in library and legal bibliography." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-identifiers-q01", "text": "Which of these identifiers and schemes hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation", "name": "Standards and regulation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "United States: Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934 antifraud provisions, especially Exchange Act §10(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5 (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission)", "United States: Investment Advisers Act of 1940, where the operator acts as an adviser (SEC)", "United States: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, 1348 (mail, wire, and securities/commodities fraud) (U.S. Department of Justice)", "United States: Commodity Exchange Act antifraud provisions where the story is futures, forex, or commodities (CFTC)", "United Kingdom: Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 - unauthorized investment business and collective-investment restrictions (Financial Conduct Authority)", "European Union: Market Abuse Regulation (EU) No 596/2014 and national criminal-fraud statutes implementing securities-market abuse rules", "FATF Recommendations: fraud as a money-laundering predicate; customer-due-diligence and suspicious-transaction reporting on the cash-flow pattern (Financial Action Task Force)", "Australia: Corporations Act 2001 misleading-and-deceptive and unlicensed-financial-services provisions (ASIC)" ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-standards-and-regulation-q01", "text": "Which of these standards and regulation hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-real-world-use", "name": "Real-world use", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Sold as a private fund, managed account, promissory note, 'guaranteed' trading program, or crypto staking pool that reports steady profits.", "Solicited through affinity networks (congregations, diaspora groups, workplace clubs) and, more recently, social-media and chat-group HYIPs.", "Detected in practice by inconsistent custody, missing independent audit, returns that do not vary with markets, and delayed or gated redemptions.", "After collapse, handled as criminal fraud plus civil receivership or (in U.S. broker-dealer cases) SIPA liquidation, with clawbacks from net winners.", "Used in securities-law teaching and forensic accounting as the canonical example of paying old money with new money." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-real-world-use-q01", "text": "Which of these real-world use hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-measurements", "name": "Typical measurements", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "quantity": "Promised or reported periodic return", "typical_range": "about 1-4 per month, or 8-50 per year, often with implausibly low variance", "unit": "percent" }, { "quantity": "Operating duration before collapse", "typical_range": "weeks to a few years for retail HYIPs; up to about 10-20 years for concealed advisory schemes", "unit": "year" }, { "quantity": "Investor principal outstanding at break", "typical_range": "10^4-10^7 for small local schemes; 10^8-10^10 for large cases (Madoff-scale principal on the order of 10^10)", "unit": "USD" }, { "quantity": "Number of participating investors", "typical_range": "tens to tens of thousands", "unit": "person" }, { "quantity": "New-inflow coverage of payouts and redemptions", "typical_range": "must stay ≥ 1 to continue; collapse when the ratio falls below 1 for a sustained period", "unit": "dimensionless ratio" } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-measurements-q01", "text": "Which of these typical measurements hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards", "name": "Failure modes and hazards", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "Liquidity break: redemptions and promised payouts exceed new subscriptions, after which the operator stalls withdrawals, fabricates excuses, or absconds.", "Exogenous shock (market crash, bank run, auditor or whistleblower) that forces verification of assets that do not exist.", "Near-total loss of remaining principal for net losers; secondary harm from clawbacks against investors who withdrew earlier.", "Community-level harm in affinity cases (churches, immigrant networks), including cascading personal bankruptcies.", "Contagion of distrust onto legitimate custodians, funds, and payment rails that were used as window dressing.", "Overlay crimes: money laundering of inflow, false regulatory filings, identity misuse, and occasional violence or suicide around collapse." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-failure-modes-and-hazards-q01", "text": "Which of these failure modes and hazards hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-regional-variation", "name": "Regional variation", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ "English legal and regulatory usage keeps 'Ponzi scheme' (fake returns from new capital) distinct from 'pyramid scheme' (pay-for-recruiting); many other languages use one snowball/pyramid term for both.", "German practice often labels both as Schneeballsystem; French uses chaîne de Ponzi beside pyramide de Ponzi / vente pyramidale.", "Chinese regulatory language distinguishes 庞氏骗局 (Ponzi) from 传销 (illegal pyramid/MLM).", "Post-socialist 1990s cases (e.g. Albanian 'pyramid firms', Russian MMM) were economically Ponzi vehicles commonly named pyramids in local political speech.", "South Asian cases are often framed as collective-investment or chit-fund frauds under domestic company and prize-chit statutes rather than the Ponzi label.", "In some Islamic-finance markets the same cash-flow fraud is packaged as mudarabah, wakala, or 'halal fixed return' products." ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-regional-variation-q01", "text": "Which of these regional variation hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] }, { "id": "evidence-neighbours", "name": "Neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart", "description": "Reported by the breadth pass; each item needs checking against its source before it becomes normative.", "evidence": [ { "name": "Pyramid scheme", "difference": "A pyramid's compensation depends on recruiting a downline; a Ponzi pays 'investment returns' from later capital and does not require recruiting as the product, even if word-of-mouth is how victims arrive." }, { "name": "Legitimate pooled investment fund", "difference": "Real, segregated assets, independent custody, an audit trail, and returns that move with the claimed strategy rather than a smooth operator-set yield funded by subscriptions." }, { "name": "Multilevel marketing with a genuine product", "difference": "Retail sales of a real good or service to end users can support compensation; if revenue is overwhelmingly from recruiting fees or inventory loading, it is a pyramid, not a Ponzi, unless investors are being paid fake yield from later deposits." }, { "name": "Fractional-reserve banking / maturity transformation", "difference": "A licensed bank discloses that deposits fund loans, holds a regulated balance sheet, and has prudential and resolution backstops; a Ponzi conceals that 'profits' are other people's principal." }, { "name": "Asset-price bubble", "difference": "A bubble is market overvaluation of a traded asset; a Ponzi is operator-controlled fake performance in which cash paid out is new investor money, not a mark-to-market gain." }, { "name": "Pump-and-dump market manipulation", "difference": "Pump-and-dump inflates a security's market price so insiders can sell; it does not systematically pay earlier participants a stated yield from later subscriptions." }, { "name": "Advance-fee (including 419) fraud", "difference": "The victim pays an upfront fee for a promised later transfer that never arrives; there is no circulating return stream funded by successive investors." }, { "name": "Failed but genuine high-risk business", "difference": "Operating cash flow and assets exist independently of new investor money, even if they later go to zero; a Ponzi never had sufficient real earnings to support the reported returns." } ], "questions": [ { "id": "evidence-neighbours-q01", "text": "Which of these neighbouring kinds and how to tell them apart hold for the sense of Ponzi scheme this model covers, and on what evidence?", "kind": "provenance" } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "openQuestions": [ "Which authoritative definitions and jurisdiction-specific standards should govern the distinction between a descriptive Ponzi assessment and a formal legal determination?", "What tracing methods are defensible when contributions, genuine earnings, borrowing and operator funds are commingled?", "How should the model delimit periods when an initially legitimate investment operation develops a Ponzi funding mechanism?", "How should hybrid Ponzi and pyramid arrangements link to neighbouring models without duplicating the same arrangement?", "What minimum evidence and uncertainty reporting should be required before classification supports different protective actions?" ], "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 11, "findings": 18, "questions": 30 } }, "draft": { "generator": "vr.draft.v3", "status": "draft-generated", "researched": false, "archetype": "discipline or field of knowledge", "method": "Written from the archetype playbook - what this kind of thing needs beyond identity and provenance - and from the structure that recurred across 6,333 models already researched by two engines. Applied to this entry by rule. No source was read for this thing and no claim here is researched. This entry carries no facets of its own, so they were inferred from its domain - a guess about a whole domain applied to one thing.", "facetsInferred": true, "nextPass": "A researcher replaces this draft with a sourced specification. Treat every sentence below as a proposal to argue with.", "purpose": "Give an agent a durable, checkable way to recognise a Ponzi scheme, record what state it is in, and decide what may be done with it.", "whatItIs": "Enable an AI agent to recognise evidence of a Ponzi scheme, assess its dependence on incoming investor funds and distinguish justified protective actions from conclusions that require further investigation.", "characteristics": { "substance": "information", "origin": "conceptual", "agency": "inert" }, "whatYouCanDoWithIt": [ "read and interpreted" ], "distinguishingFeatures": [ "Names folded into this entry, which a task may need to split apart again: high-yield investment program.", "1 finer distinctions are held as aliases rather than separate entries, because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it.", "Described in 60 Wikipedia languages, which is a measure of how widely the thing is known, not of how important it is." ], "openQuestionsForResearch": [ "Which of the bundles below does a real task actually need, and which are ceremony?", "What does this thing have that the facets do not capture at all?", "Which neighbouring kind is most often confused with a Ponzi scheme, and on what evidence are they told apart?" ], "whatItIsMadeOf": "content that has to be carried by something else", "physicalCharacter": [ "Does nothing on its own; everything it does, something else did to it.", "These come from the domain this entry sits in rather than from the entry itself, so treat them as a first guess about the whole domain applied to one thing." ], "whatCanBeDoneWithIt": [ "read it and act on what it says" ], "howItIsRecognised": [], "relatedModels": [ { "relation": "covers", "note": "Finer kinds folded into this entry because telling them apart needs a task that asks for it. Each is a model waiting to be split out when one does.", "targets": [ "high-yield investment program" ] } ], "standing": "Described in 60 Wikipedia languages, which measures how widely it is written about rather than how important or how common it is. 1 finer distinctions are held inside this entry as names rather than as separate models.", "structure": { "bundles": [ { "id": "identity-and-classification", "name": "Identity, naming and classification", "description": "How an agent tells one Ponzi scheme from another, and a Ponzi scheme from things that resemble it.", "rationale": "Recognition comes before every other claim. Without stable identity nothing else in the model can be trusted to be about the same thing twice.", "layers": [ { "id": "naming-and-identifiers", "name": "Names and identifiers", "description": "The names this thing goes by and the identifiers that survive translation and time.", "findings": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases", "name": "Preferred name, aliases and local names", "description": "Which name to use, which names mean the same thing, and which merely sound similar.", "questions": [ { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the name of a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the name of a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "preferred-name-and-aliases-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the name of a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers", "name": "Stable identifiers and external keys", "description": "Identifiers that keep pointing at this kind of thing across systems and languages.", "questions": [ { "id": "stable-identifiers-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an identifier for a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an identifier for a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stable-identifiers-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an identifier for a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification-and-granularity", "name": "Classification and granularity", "description": "Where a Ponzi scheme sits among kinds, and how finely a task needs to cut it.", "findings": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents", "name": "Kind, parents and neighbouring kinds", "description": "The classes this thing belongs to and the ones it is next to.", "questions": [ { "id": "kind-and-parents-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the kind of a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the kind of a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "kind-and-parents-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the kind of a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features", "name": "Distinguishing features", "description": "What separates a Ponzi scheme from the things most often confused with it.", "questions": [ { "id": "distinguishing-features-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes what distinguishes a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about what distinguishes a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "distinguishing-features-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once what distinguishes a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "state-and-lifecycle", "name": "State and lifecycle", "description": "The states a Ponzi scheme passes through and the events that move it between them.", "rationale": "Most decisions about a thing depend on what state it is in now, which is a claim with a time on it, not a property.", "layers": [ { "id": "lifecycle-stages", "name": "Lifecycle stages", "description": "From coming into existence to ceasing to be one of these.", "findings": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions", "name": "Stages and transitions", "description": "The stages worth naming and what moves a Ponzi scheme between them.", "questions": [ { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the lifecycle of a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the lifecycle of a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "stages-and-transitions-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the lifecycle of a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "observations-and-status", "name": "Observations and current status", "description": "What is observed about a Ponzi scheme, how often and by whom.", "findings": [ { "id": "observation-record", "name": "Observation record", "description": "How an observation of a Ponzi scheme is recorded so that it can be superseded rather than overwritten.", "questions": [ { "id": "observation-record-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes an observation of a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about an observation of a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "observation-record-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once an observation of a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "content-and-access", "name": "Content, encoding and access", "description": "What a Ponzi scheme says, how it is encoded and who may read it.", "rationale": "An informational thing carries content that can be copied, versioned and withheld, none of which its physical carrier explains.", "layers": [ { "id": "content-and-encoding", "name": "Content and encoding", "description": "The content itself, its format and its language.", "findings": [ { "id": "content-and-format", "name": "Content, format and language", "description": "What a Ponzi scheme contains and in what form it is held.", "questions": [ { "id": "content-and-format-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the content of a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the content of a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "content-and-format-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the content of a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "access-and-rights", "name": "Access, rights and retention", "description": "Who may read, copy or change it, and for how long it is kept.", "findings": [ { "id": "access-rules", "name": "Access rules and retention", "description": "The permissions attached to a Ponzi scheme and the period it survives.", "questions": [ { "id": "access-rules-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes access to a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about access to a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "access-rules-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once access to a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "subject-and-method", "name": "Subject matter and method", "description": "What Ponzi scheme studies and how it establishes anything.", "rationale": "A field is identified by its questions and its methods, and those are what distinguish it from the fields next to it.", "layers": [ { "id": "subject", "name": "Subject matter", "description": "The questions it takes as its own.", "findings": [ { "id": "subject-record", "name": "Questions and objects of study", "description": "What it is about, stated so a neighbouring field can be told apart.", "questions": [ { "id": "subject-record-q01", "text": "What questions and objects does Ponzi scheme take as its own?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "subject-record-q02", "text": "Which questions does it share with a neighbouring field, and who claims them?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "method", "name": "Method and evidence", "description": "How claims are established and what counts as evidence.", "findings": [ { "id": "method-record", "name": "Methods and standards of evidence", "description": "The methods used and what they are taken to establish.", "questions": [ { "id": "method-record-q01", "text": "By what methods does Ponzi scheme establish claims, and what counts as sufficient evidence?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "method-record-q02", "text": "What kind of claim can this field not settle, and where should an agent look instead?", "kind": "action" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "institutions-and-classification", "name": "Institutions and classification", "description": "Where Ponzi scheme is practised and how catalogues place it.", "rationale": "The institutional footprint is the evidence that a field exists as a field rather than as a topic.", "layers": [ { "id": "institutions", "name": "Institutional markers", "description": "Societies, journals, degrees and departments.", "findings": [ { "id": "institution-record", "name": "Bodies and venues", "description": "Where the field organises itself.", "questions": [ { "id": "institution-record-q01", "text": "Which societies, journals or degrees mark Ponzi scheme as an established field?", "kind": "provenance" }, { "id": "institution-record-q02", "text": "What would show that it is emerging or dissolving rather than established?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] }, { "id": "classification", "name": "Classification schemes", "description": "Where library and research classifications put it.", "findings": [ { "id": "classification-record", "name": "Codes and their disagreements", "description": "The classification codes that place it, and where they differ.", "questions": [ { "id": "classification-record-q01", "text": "Which classification schemes place Ponzi scheme, under what codes?", "kind": "definition" }, { "id": "classification-record-q02", "text": "Where do those schemes disagree about its scope?", "kind": "boundary" } ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "provenance-and-evidence", "name": "Provenance, evidence and time", "description": "Where every claim about a Ponzi scheme came from and when it held.", "rationale": "A claim without a source and a time cannot be superseded, only overwritten, and an agent that overwrites loses the ability to explain itself.", "layers": [ { "id": "source-and-authority", "name": "Source and authority", "description": "Who said it, on what evidence, and how strongly.", "findings": [ { "id": "claim-provenance", "name": "Claim provenance and confidence", "description": "The authority behind each claim about a Ponzi scheme and how confident it is.", "questions": [ { "id": "claim-provenance-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes a claim about a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about a claim about a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "claim-provenance-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once a claim about a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] }, { "id": "time-and-versions", "name": "Time, versions and supersession", "description": "When a claim was true, when it was learnt, and what replaced it.", "findings": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession", "name": "Validity period and supersession", "description": "How an old claim about a Ponzi scheme is retired without being erased.", "questions": [ { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q01", "text": "What identifies and describes the validity of a claim about a Ponzi scheme, and in what units or vocabulary?", "kind": "definition", "answer_data": [ "identifiers", "types and classes", "values with units", "explicit unknowns" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q02", "text": "Who or what asserted this about the validity of a claim about a Ponzi scheme, by which method, and when was it true?", "kind": "provenance", "answer_data": [ "authority", "method", "evidence", "event time", "knowledge time" ] }, { "id": "validity-and-supersession-q03", "text": "What may an agent decide or do once the validity of a claim about a Ponzi scheme is known, and what must it refuse?", "kind": "action", "answer_data": [ "permitted actions", "preconditions", "refusals", "escalation" ] } ] } ] } ] } ] }, "statistics": { "bundles": 6, "layers": 12, "findings": 14, "questions": 38 } } } }