The most usual perspective for people on the fence with respect to crypto is considering it a Ponzi scheme, because compared to traditional assets “it seems too good to be true”. This is also a perspective that most other sources tend not to cover, to keep the words crypto and Ponzi separated in web search results.
The sad truth is: yes, some cryptocurrencies are in fact Ponzi schemes. Normally, cryptos in the “store of value” class of tokens, in which:
Their supply is often constant or converging to a constant.
Their demand is primarily driven by their price.
Their price is driven by supply and demand.
In a Ponzi scheme, this definition would be cyclic. At some point, the channel of its logistic curve would be saturated, demand would cease, and value would plummet. In this case the definition is not completely cyclic — note: “primarily”. We need to ask:
Assuming that everybody knows that the price of a store of value token will decrease a small amount every year. Would some people still use it?
If the answer is “yes”, then we acknowledge some value in it beyond the expected profit of a Ponzi scheme. There are many reasons for answering “yes”, here are a few examples:
It loses value at a rate lower than the inflation, providing a partial protection to inflation, which is better than nothing. Or with lower fees than other stores of value.
It allows a permissionless (no KYC) approach to store value, e.g. when people cannot open bank accounts, e.g. living in a trailer without a permanent address, required by some banks.
It allows easy transfers of large sums, e.g. transfer coins between wallets, but also transfer a wallet by sharing its seed (normally 12 or 24 words).
If you have a token in mind and you are wondering if the answer would be “yes” for that token too, you have to “do your own research” (DYOR).