He’s describing a speculative bubble, not a Ponzi scheme. By your definition any enterprise where money flows in and out and involves more than one party is a Ponzi scheme.
1. If bitcoin didn't have transaction fees and you have unrolled every bitcoin transaction ever made, everyone would have the same amount of money they started with. This is called a zero sum game.
2. But it does have transaction fees so if you did the same in the real world then the miners would be ahead and everyone else would lose. This is called a negative sum game or a scam.
3. If you were to do the same to, say, every Intel stock, then you'd be ahead because of the dividends paid.
This is silly. Way too many things would meet this standard for "scam"/"ponzi". Gold for example: it costs money to dig it out of the ground, and critically to keep it stored securely, insured, tested for purity, etc. Consider how much money the USA must spend keeping its gold stockpile safe! Those are pure drags on the system so indeed the total amount spent on gold must always be more than net proceeds from gold sales after accounting for cost of ownership.
A ponzi scheme can turn into a roughly zero sum game if there isn't a rush but instead stable behavior over hundreds of years. Which is exactly what you describe with gold.
Plus, gold actually does have some industrial uses so its value is actually somewhat greater than zero even if people one day woke up and didn't think it looked good for jewelry :P
This is just true if you assume the transactions have zero value which seems unlikely given that in general most transactions/commerce creates a lot of value.
