A friend recently asked me how all of DeFi isn’t just one giant Ponzi scheme. Even DeFi protocols with “real” revenue ultimately derive those cashflows from people trading and “putting money into the system.” On the surface, that critique has some bite. Most DeFi protocols don’t own factories, farmlands, or power plants. Their income usually comes from some combination of trading, lending, or liquidation.
This does at times looks suspiciously like a closed loop of money sloshing around. But if that argument is followed to its logical conclusion, it does not just condemn Crypto. It quietly implies that all of modern finance (banks, insurers, stock markets, derivative exchanges, market makers) is essentially one gigantic, parasitic edifice that only “works” as long as people keep putting money in. And, in a narrow, technical sense, that is not entirely wrong. Yet it misses the fundamental reason financial systems exist at all.
Real Economy vs Financial System
The starting point is simple: real value is created in the real economy with people producing goods and services:
Food, housing, infrastructure
Energy, manufacturing, logistics
Healthcare, education, entertainment
Software, tools, and technology
Finance does not bake bread or build bridges. Instead, it creates and trades claims on what the real economy produces, and it reorganizes who bears which risk, at what time, under which conditions. Those claims and risk allocations may look abstract, but they have an enormous practical effect: they determine who can act, when, and with how much security or volatility. At its best, the financial system does two things:
Moves resources to where they can be used most effectively.
Moves risk to those who can best absorb or manage it.
DeFi, in this lens, is simply an experimental new way of encoding and transferring those claims and risks using blockchains and smart contracts. Before DeFi can be evaluated fairly, it helps to understand what “traditional” finance actually does.
Freedoms Across Space and Time
John Locke famously emphasized three fundamental rights: life, liberty, and property.
Life is the right to exist.
Liberty is freedom across space: to move, act, speak, work.
Property is freedom across time: to keep the fruits of one’s work, to store value for the future, or to borrow against future efforts.
That last idea, property as temporal freedom, is crucial. Property allows a person to:
Save today so a future self has resources.
Borrow today because a future self is expected to repay.
Plan multi-year projects instead of living moment to moment.
Finance is essentially the machinery that makes this freedom across time and contingent futures workable at scale. It links today’s actions and tomorrow’s outcomes:
Savings accounts, bonds, and pensions store value for future selves.
Mortgages and business loans pull future income into the present.
Insurance protect against bad futures and allow planning in uncertain conditions.
If that machinery disappears, society does not revert to some purified, “non-ponzi” state. Instead, people are thrown back into a world where it is far harder to coordinate long-term projects, share risk, or plan beyond the immediate.
Banks: Intermediate Risks Across Time
The critique that “revenue only comes from people putting money into the system” is often applied to banks and DeFi alike. It is true, but incomplete. Consider what a bank actually does. At its core, banking involves a single important function which is maturity transformation: Banks take short-term deposits (which can be withdrawn at any time) and turn them into long-term loans (such as mortgages or business loans). This is useful because savers want safety and liquidity, the option to get money back quickly while borrowers want duration, stable access to capital over years or decades. These preferences conflict; banks manage that mismatch.
Depositors and borrowers do not simply hand money around in a circle. The bank organizes and pools these positions. Not everyone withdraws at once, so the bank can safely lend out a portion. The bank analyzes credit risk and decides whom to lend to, at what rate. The bank holds capital buffers and manages liquidity so the system does not snap under stress (at least in theory).
The bank’s revenue, interest spread, fees, does come from participants in the system. Yet the service being paid for is non-trivial: the translation of lots of small, short-term savings into large, long-term investments, and the aggregation and management of risk across time. Without this intermediation, buying a house or funding a large project would be vastly harder for ordinary people. If the banking system is dismissed as a Ponzi simply because “money comes from other people putting money in,” the argument is attacking the very concept of time-based risk intermediation.
Derivatives & Insurance: Intermediate Risk Across Contingencies
Insurance and derivatives often appear in completely different mental categories, but structurally, they share a deep similarity: both reallocate risk based on conditional futures. Their essential logic is:
“If X happens, one party pays; if Y happens, the other party pays.”
Both industries are about risk transformation across states of the world: Weather, credit events, market prices, mortality, default, and other contingencies. The goal is to move risk away from those who cannot bear it and toward those who can; either because they are more diversified, more informed, or simply more willing to take it.
Participants in these markets indeed “just pay each other.” Insurance premiums, option premiums, margin, and settlement flows all originate from human participants. There is no magical external profit generator. Still, the value is concrete:
A factory can insure against fire or floods and justify large upfront investments. A farmer can hedge against price movements in grain and avoid ruin from a single bad season. A pension fund can match liabilities by hedging interest rate or inflation risks.
To label that complex web of risk transfer as “Ponzi-like” simply because cash flows circulate among participants is to overlook its main function: enabling real economic actors to survive and plan in an uncertain world.
Exchanges & Traders: Liquid Provision & Price Discovery
No discussion of financial infrastructure is complete without exchanges and traders. If banks and insurers are about transforming risk over time and across conditions, exchanges and traders are about providing liquidity and price discovery to those transformations.
Exchanges create venues where buyers and sellers can meet in standardized, transparent ways. Market makers and trading firms stand ready to quote prices on both sides to keep markets continuous. Their compensation is the spread between the prices they buy at and sell at, plus fees and other flow-related advantages.
Once again, all of the money is “just coming from other people.” But in return, participants receive a crucial service: the ability to quickly and predictably change their positions: A person can sell a stock to free cash, a company can issue shares or bonds into a liquid market, and an institution can unwind a hedge or adjust its risk profile with minimal friction.
Remove exchanges and liquidity providers, and the financial claims themselves become far less useful. The right to sell or rebalance only matters if there is a functioning market in which to do so.
Is Everything Just a Ponzi?
Here the critics’ argument meets its own reflection. If a “Ponzi” is defined extremely loosely as “a structure where returns to some participants are funded by the inputs of other participants,” then the entire financial system, including banks, insurers, traders, exchanges, qualifies. Money paid out in one corner almost always originates from money put in somewhere else. There is no divine external cash faucet.
But that definition collapses the difference between:
fraudulent Ponzi scheme:
No sustainable underlying mechanism.
False promises of guaranteed returns.
A risk- and time-allocation system:
Returns tied (albeit loosely and noisily) to real-world productivity, creditworthiness, and risk-bearing.
Participants knowingly trade risk, time, and contingent payoffs.
The key question is not “does the system rely on money from other participants?” That is always the case. The key questions are: Does the system honestly reflect underlying economic reality? Does it reliably transform and allocate risk and time in ways that help (loosely and noisily) society coordinate and invest? Are claims ultimately anchored (loosely and noisily) to real-world productive activity?
With those questions in mind, DeFi can be evaluated as just another candidate architecture for finance.
New Plumbing for Old Problems
Crypto and DeFi sit at an awkward intersection of genuine innovation and blatant speculation. At their most constructive, blockchain systems aim to:
Represent property rights (tokens, NFTs, claims) in programmable form.
Build banking-like services (lending, borrowing, stablecoins) as open protocols.
Create insurance- and derivative-like instruments via smart contracts.
Provide decentralized exchange mechanisms for trading these assets and risks.
Do all of this on publicly auditable, non-custodial infrastructure.
Like traditional finance, DeFi derives most of its revenue from:
Trading fees.
Interest spreads.
Liquidation penalties.
Funding payments.
The critique “But that’s just money from other people using the system” applies here, and correctly. Yet it also applies to nearly every stock exchange, options market, and broker-dealer on the planet. The deeper questions are: Do these protocols enable meaningful risk sharing and capital allocation, or are they self-referential games with no link to real economic activity? Are participants informed and aware of the risks, or are they misled by promises of impossibly stable, high returns? Are governance, transparency, and incentives aligned with long-term functionality?
At this stage, the crypto landscape is mixed: Some protocols pragmatically improve how capital and risk move, especially in global, permissionless contexts where traditional institutions are fragile or exclusionary. Others are near-pure reflexive speculation, where rising prices attract new entrants whose inflows support earlier entrants in a way that does resemble classic Ponzi dynamics. Many users treat the entire space as a casino rather than as an infrastructure layer.
None of this is unique to crypto. Early stages of new financial technologies, from joint-stock companies to complex derivatives, have often featured bubbles, abuse, and spectacular failure before maturing into normalized infrastructure. DeFi is nascent, messy, and filled with both innovation and opportunism. Some parts of it deserve the Ponzi label; others do not. But simply asserting that “money comes from other people, therefore it’s a scam” is not a targeted critique of DeFi, it is an attack on the entire concept of financial intermediation.
If that is the real objection, the debate is not DeFi vs. TradFi. The debate is whether society should have large-scale systems that allow people to transform and trade claims on future resources and risks at all. Empirical evidence suggests that financial markets are necessary for economic growth and make everyone better off. More importantly, however, is the fact that freedom across time is inseparable from some sort of financial machinery. To reject that machinery entirely is to argue, effectively, against the institutionalization of intertemporal freedom itself.
Disclaimer
The information provided on TheLogbook (the “Substack”) is strictly for informational and educational purposes only and should not be considered as investment or financial advice. The author is not a licensed financial advisor or tax professional and is not offering any professional services through this Substack. Investing in financial markets involves substantial risk, including possible loss of principal. Past performance is not indicative of future results. The author makes no representations or warranties about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability of the information provided.
This Substack may contain links to external websites not affiliated with the author, and the accuracy of information on these sites is not guaranteed. Nothing contained in this Substack constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments. Always seek the advice of a qualified financial advisor before making any investment decisions.