Didn't Ponzi make material lies about what his company did also? It just seems like a dubious distinction. More than what they did being different, I think the laws and terminology around those laws are different now. I don't think there is much pragmatic difference, mostly just semantics no?
There is a meaningful difference. A ponzi scheme involves: schemer takes money from Mr. A. At a later date he takes money from Mr B. He gives some of the money from Mr. B to Mr A, and tells Mr. A that it's "returns". He tells Mr B. all is fine. Then Mr C comes along and his money is given to Mr. A and Mr. B, as "returns". This continues.
It's a very specific type of fraud. Most fraud isn't a ponzi, just like every injury isn't a broken arm. It's silly to go around calling all injuries a broken arm.
It's not because A ==> B that B ==> A. A Ponzi scheme is a fraud but a frauds doesn't necessarily imply a Ponzi scheme. That's is not just semantic, it's a logic falacy.
I believe that may be correct, although in practice there is often/usually/historically-always (?) deception involved, because presumably no morally competent adult would willingly give their money to an honest Ponzi unless they knew they stood to benefit by being one of the first to pull out.
But as you point out, I don't think deception per se is really the defining feature of the Ponzi.
