That’s just semantics at this point. I would encourage you to address the statement being made and ignore the technical definition of the phrase. To restate without the offending phrase:

[T]he idea that the promotion of crypto thus far has existed to allow early adopters to cash out at the apparent expense of later adopters, while bringing essentially no other utility to any of its backers or the public at large, is pretty obvious.

And the semantics matter. When we are using words that mean specific things. Other wise why even care what words we use? Just throw something and expect everyone automatically understand.

I wasn't trying to debate the merits of crypto. I'm pointing out that the parent has a clear misunderstanding of what a ponzi scheme is. The semantics is the whole point. He's using the word incorrectly.

By your definition, every successful stock on the planet is a ponzi scheme

It is very much not just semantics. Ponzi schemes are illegal so the difference matters.

I double checked and no one in our comment chain has said anything about legality at all, or even implied same, so you pointing that out as the defining distinction is not really relevant, don't you think? Besides, pump and dump schemes of securities are illegal, though notably most crypto is in the grey area because the SEC doesn’t classify it as a security.

It's a bit of a shortcut. It implies that cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and ethereum don't fulfill the necessary criteria to be deemed a ponzi scheme. If we look at all the red flags mentioned in the wikipedia article.... I shortened some criteria, for a more detailed explanation of each criterium I suggest you check the Wikipedia article.

High investment returns with little or no risk. --- Not true.

Overly consistent returns --- Not true.

Unregistered investments --- True in some cases, not true in others.

Unlicensed sellers --- same as above.

Secretive or complex strategies --- Not true.

Issues with paperwork --- Not true

Difficulty receiving payments --- Not true. Actually irrelevant.

The sales personnel or adviser are overly pushy or aggressive. --- Not true. Actually irrelevant. Not bitcoin or ethereum sales personnel or advisers exist.

The initial contact took place by a cold call or through a social network, a language-based radio or a religious radio advertisement. --- This one is a tough one since there are definitely devotees that likely were vital in the initial spread. In most cases people probably came into contact with crypto through the mainstream media though.

The client cannot determine the actual trades or investments that have been carried out. --- Not true

The clients are asked to write checks with a different name than the name of the corporation (such as an individual) or to send checks to a different address than the corporate address. --- Not true. Actually irrelevant.

Once the maturity date of their investment arrives, clients are pressured to roll over the principal and the profits. --- Not true. Also irrelevant.

There are many MLMs that are legal despite being thinly disguised Ponzi schemes.