Is it a matrix just because it looks like one?

[bigfatty7]

Hey all,

I'm new here and I didn't see the answer I was looking for so...

All of the research about a matrix and its mathmatics talks about how it cannot be sustained over time because the pool of "new members" is a limited pool, i.e. refering to how a pyramid scam is illegal because of this fact. Also all the research I have read talks about because of the fact that only "new members" count towards the people cycling it makes it illegal.

My question is this:

If the people at the top are able to buy in as much as they want, with their own buy-in counting towards their own cycle (i.e. they buy 3 business plans at $40 per plan and the second two buy-ins count towards themselves or another person getting their prize.), and also, after they cycle they are able to buy-in again and those second buy-ins feed the pyramid from the bottom, is that truly a matrix? In a true matrix or pyramid it is imposible for the people at the top to feed the bottom, at least that is what I get from my research. I ask because that ability to buy-in and help yourself and buy-in after you cycled to help others seems to defeat one of the main arguments of the mathmatics issue.

Thanks in advance for your experienced answer.

Bigfatty7

[jokach]

I'm not sure I totally understand what you are describing, but let me try to explain ...

If the first person on the list buys a few 'products' instead of just one, then the next person buys a few 'products' instead of just one, the only person benefiting is the first person, because they will cycle quicker because all the products bought by the first and second person combined, count towards only the first persons ability to cycle. :crazy:

If you're suggesting that each person have their own 'list', and can help themselves cycle, I can't see the point (for a $40 signal booster on a 10 person list, you've invested $400 towards a gift for yourself, why not just buy it yourself without the matrix?).


In a true matrix or pyramid it is imposible for the people at the top to feed the bottom


You're exactly right, it actually works in the reverse, the people at the bottom are feeding the people at the top ......... :eek:


I ask because that ability to buy-in and help yourself and buy-in after you cycled to help others seems to defeat one of the main arguments of the mathmatics issue.


The reality is, once a person cycles, they are not going to volunteer their money towards other people cycling. You can see that all over this site where people who have cycled in a matrix don't care about the people left on the stagnant lists. This certifies the mathmatical argument, because you can't sustain the matrix because you can't get new people, nor can you get the cycled people to re-invest and get nothing.

I hope I shed some light on your question ............ :cool:

jokach

[bigfatty7]

Just another quick question rgarding...


The reality is, once a person cycles, they are not going to volunteer their money towards other people cycling.
jokach

I am not sure I agree with you. The original person paid $40 for, let's say an e-commerce business plan and resources. Then a while later they cycle and can take the cash or prize. They take the prize of $300 thus getting a profit of $260 off that "investment," which really isn't an investment because they bought an actual product.

Wouldn't a reasonable person, based on those facts "reinvest?" Coming from a finance and accounting background I would seriously have to consider that based on rate of return alone.

Just a hypothetical?

P.S. I have seen a lot about "victims" but if the person buys an actual product, not some stupid phone booster or eBook, and the site says you are buying a real item and "we give gifts out of our benevolence," then how can anyone be owed anything?

Thanks again for your expert advise,

Bigfatt7

[jokach]

I am not sure I agree with you. The original person paid $40 for, let's say an e-commerce business plan and resources. Then a while later they cycle and can take the cash or prize. They take the prize of $300 thus getting a profit of $260 off that "investment," which really isn't an investment because they bought an actual product.

Wouldn't a reasonable person, based on those facts "reinvest?" Coming from a finance and accounting background I would seriously have to consider that based on rate of return alone.


Again, its a matter of opinion of course. If I pay $40 for an ecommerce business plan and resources, and am lucky enough to have 9 people sign up after me, and I cycled to get the gift, I would think a reasonable person could consider themselves lucky doing just this in a matrix. Why reinvest when you have the $40 tangible product, and a cool profit of $260 already. At this point, the matrix list you are describing is laid out as follows based on purchaser 1's cycle:

1. purchaser 1 - cycled, paid $40, got product, and cycled, got 'gift' and $260 profit
2. first helper - now cycling
3. second helper
4. third helper
5. fourth helper
6. fifth helper
7. fixth helper
8. seventh helper
9. eighth helper
10. ninth helper
11. tenth helper, purchaser 1 got their gift from this purchase
12. purchaser 1 reinvests in the same product list to 'help out'

In order for the person at spot twelve in the above to cycle again (remember, this is the same original investor in #1), there would have to be over 100+ new signups. .... the odds of that occuring are very low, therefore I see it as a bad investment, at this point, all you are doing is donating to a stagnant list.

Again, I realize its hypothetical, and investing in something like this could always be a gamble. But when the odds stack up like the above, I can't see a reasonable person investing anything more in that list. Thats the reason lists become stagnant, and only the person at the top 2 (if that) benefit in a matrix scheme ........

Now, if you use your first example towards the above, and say purchaser 1 invests in a few spots as a helper so they cycle, they are only cutting into their own profit for each $40 investment (and duplicate ecommerce/business plan book). Those spots will be difficult to cycle as well (even if they need less than 100 new signups) because the traffic is not there to sustain long-term growth in a matrix ..

Again, its a matter of opinion.

jokach

[bigfatty7]

Ok, I think that I finally see the reason behind the math. But there is still one thing that I don't understand.

If the person is buying a legit product, I did say if, then why are people regarded as victims when they don't get a free prize? Why are people on this site referencing people on the lists as being owed money? If they have purchased the product then it seems that they are not guarenteed a prize, they are guarenteed a quality product. If the owners of the so-called matrix are not money hungry jerks and happen to spend some of their profits from selling a legit item, does that make it an entitlement for all the people who bought said product?

I have read through many posts before becoming a member today and part of me thinks that part of the problem is that people cry sour grapes when they don't get what they "think" they are entitled to and the other part thinks it really is a scam. I guess the hard part is when I cansee valid arguments from both sides.

That is the reason I became a member today. So that I could at least for myself really sift through all the back and forth and see what is really going on.

Later,

Bigfatty7

[websurfer03101]

Biggy you should check some matrixes out (if there are any). Most will promote their so called free gift. They almost guarantee it. But that is beside the point. I'm sure you go to a store. You might see a bag of potato chips (or whatever) and it says 25% more free. Well it isn't free you first have to buy the chips. You can't just open them up, take out that 25% and walk out the store without paying.

Another example is; a while ago I bought a digital camera. It was advertised it came with free 256mb flash card. That is one of the reason I bought it from that store. Now if I picked up the camera, went to checkout, asked where the free extra memory was and they said sorry we don't have it anymore. Of course I would have been upset, but by your reasoning the store could say, "Well it was free anyways why are you complaining?"

The point is if you advertise something free, but in order to get that free thing, you have to buy something, then you are entitled to that free item.

[mercinary]

More importantly, the product you are getting (i.e. signal boosters) are typically FAR over-priced. The purchase of these items is recognized by the law as just a front for the scam.

-Merc