In the clean, simple narrative of financial regulation, there are villains and there are victims. The villains are the scammers, the architects of the fraudulent schemes. The victims are the innocent, unsuspecting members of the public who lose their money. This black-and-white framework is comforting, and in many cases of fraud, it is accurate. But the High-Yield Investment Program industry does not exist in black and white. It exists in a perpetual, murky shade of gray. It forces us to ask a deeply uncomfortable question: at what point does a victim, armed with knowledge and experience, become a willing accomplice?
This is not a legal question, but an ethical one. We know that the HYIP model is a financial pyramid. We know, with mathematical certainty, that for a few to profit, many more must lose. The money is not generated by a magical trading bot; it is transferred from the pockets of the last investors to the pockets of the first investors and the admin. It is a zero-sum game, minus the admin's take. When an experienced participant enters a new hyip project, fully aware of this structure, what is their moral standing? Are they simply a savvy player in a high-risk game, or are they a participant in a system designed to harm others?
This is the moral compass of the HYIP world, and it rarely points true north. It spins wildly, caught in the conflicting magnetic fields of personal responsibility, systemic desperation, and the universal hope for a windfall.
It's a mistake to view all HYIP participants as a monolithic group. They exist on a spectrum of knowledge and intent, and their ethical culpability changes as they move along it.
Level 1: The True Believer (The Victim)
This is the genuine novice. They stumble upon a HYIP, perhaps through a YouTube video or a friend's recommendation. They read the 'legend' about AI trading and believe it. They are unaware of the Ponzi structure and genuinely believe they have found a legitimate, high-tech investment. When the program collapses, they are unequivocally the victims of fraud. They were sold a lie, and they bought it.
Level 2: The Hopeful Gambler (The Ambiguous)
This participant is more experienced. They have likely lost money in a previous program. They understand, on some level, that the program is not entirely legitimate and carries immense risk. They know the stories might not be true, but they choose to suspend their disbelief. Their hope is to be one of the lucky ones who gets in early and out before the collapse. They aren't actively trying to harm others, but they are aware that the system might. Their participation is an act of willful blindness.
Level 3: The Strategic Player (The Accomplice)
This is the experienced, professional participant. They have zero illusions about the nature of the game. They know, with 100% certainty, that they are participating in a Ponzi scheme. They understand that their profits, if they manage to secure any, are paid directly by the losses of other, less-informed participants. They often use referral programs to recruit others, fully aware that most of their downline will lose money. Their participation is a conscious, strategic decision to play a game where others are the exit liquidity. Ethically, it is very difficult to distinguish this player from the administrator themselves. They are knowingly perpetuating a system that requires a steady stream of new victims to function.
Experienced players often employ a set of powerful rationalizations to justify their actions:
The HYIP ecosystem is a fascinating and troubling moral landscape. It's a system that preys on the desperate and the naive, but it is actively sustained and perpetuated by a core group of experienced players who understand its predatory nature perfectly. It forces us to confront the reality that the line between victim and villain is not always clear. It can be a blurry, shifting boundary that a person crosses not in a single leap, but in a series of small, rationalized steps.
Ultimately, while the legal blame may fall solely on the anonymous administrator, the ethical responsibility is more widely distributed. It is shared by anyone who knowingly participates in and promotes a system whose very design requires a constant supply of losers to create a handful of temporary winners. It is a world with many players but very few heroes.
Author: Matti Korhonen, independent financial researcher from Helsinki, specializing in high-risk investment monitoring and cryptocurrency fraud analysis since 2012.
