I saw a post in Synereo's Slack forum asking about if the community thought that Synereo's Wildspark was modeled after a pyramid scheme. I didn't think it was. I thought about it for a bit and here's what I reason.

Why I argue that Wildspark is not propagating a pyramid scheme:

1. In a pyramid scheme one primarily earns by offering to someone the (mis)conception of a profit by propagating the same offer through another who holds the same (mis)conception. Often, people who don't understand that this is the case are those who participate and there isn't value offered to the end user that legitimizes the end payment. Users of Wildspark can profit without others propagating the original offer. Someone can expose a target audience to media and gain value by perhaps earning a fan, an engagment in an interaction/transaction, or by spreading information, influence etc. An amplification can be used as a service whereas in a pyramid scheme the end user isn't receiving a service but an unfulfilled promise.
2. (Similarly) At the bottom of pyramid schemes there's always a loser regardless of the quality of the offer. Shared content (the offer) with Wildspark, on the otherhand, diminishes in quality/value up to the point that it is no longer worth amplyifying (being reshared). If there were still equal quality/value for attention as when the sharing began, it would still be rewarding to amp along. In a pyramid scheme, the offer is usually not worth anything on the first share at all and usually has the same quality throughtout it's propagation. As of the writing of this post, content can be amped for as little as $0.03, which actually serves as a basic spam defense. The last person to amp some particular content who doesn't receive any monetary gain from followed amps isn't actually a loser as they still signal to any non-amping viewers/followers that this content is not spam, which provides value and the viewers/followers value.
3. Created content can award a bounty that if no one shares the creator loses the investment(?)
   Not sure about this one, but when clarified that this is so: this would deter people from spamming garbage that only has value because people are contributing to a pyramid due to the fact that based on REO, spammers would surround themselves with other spammers who somewhere along the lines would be the loser at the end of the pyramid. As time progressed the REO of users would bring decline and they would have to drop off because it would not be profitable. The people providing profitable (valued) content would continue to have fair to high REO and would be sustainable. You don't see in pyramid schemes the top of the pyramid giving away value. Opposing opinions? Someone who perhaps could clarify the use of REO according to the whitepaper?
   In summary, the reason that Wildspark is not a pyramid scheme is because the function of Wildspark is to provide a service that itself has value which people pay for with amps. The end result, though probably will include it's fair share of spam along the way, is a market with more high value stuff. By the way, I have no affiliation with Synereo or Wildspark. This opinion is my own and for informational purposes only. This is not any type of advice. Thanks for reading!!
   Follow, Resteem and Browse my channel. Please and Ty!