Relevance of "questionable/ponzi" category

[snailking]

(Posted from Twitter at owocki's suggestion)

I'm curious as to the relevance of the "questionable/ponzi" category, with the inclusion of Fomo3D. Fomo3D doesn't differ in principle from curving token bonding revenue primitive, it's only an implementation with questionable parameters.

There's many examples of questionable implementations of other revenue primitives:

• vaporware ICOs with no intention of delivering on their product
• the Eos model, where a year-long ICO allowed for recycling the pledged funds to inflate the price of the token on the open market

Arguably, any of the web3 revenue primitive could be used in a questionable way, given a specific implementation. Which leads to a couple questions:

1. Is there a point in having a separate category, as if these were separate models?

2. Doesn't having a "questionable/ponzi" category open the list to unnecessary subjectivity, with the inclusion of some projects and not others?

• Tether is listed as an example of fiat-backed stablecoin, despite a lack of transparency regarding the alleged fiat backing and a long history of questionable practices
• CryptoKitties is a legitimate NFT pioneer, but the pricing model allowed for unsustainable valuations as greater's fool theory took hold during the initial 2017 craze.

In essence, is a scheme that knowingly allows for ponzi-behavior and makes no effort to safeguard its users more virtuous than an overt pyramid scheme where everything is mathematically encoded and transparent? More importantly, is this document the right place to express an implicit opinion through the inclusion of select implementations in the "questionable/ponzi" category? The debate as to which model fits and which model is flawed can be endless.

Overall, this is a great document and overview, just curious about this particular point.