Tyler Burns on Nostr: The only counter to that I'd argue is that with a fully collateralized loan, there is ...

The only counter to that I'd argue is that with a fully collateralized loan, there is no capital creation in the process and therefore is not a ponzi. Even if the borrower turned around and purchased additional bitcoin with the loan proceeds they received, there is no new capital in the system inherent to the origination of the loan if the bank is simply using their own acquired capital to provide these services (both the loan origination and the later bitcoin brokering).

I think your argument against lending in this case here isn't necessarily against lending specifically, but against the idea of fractional reserve banking that creates new capital via debt and therefore does meet the definition of a ponzi as you described. The capital that gets created can never be fully realized if everyone decides to cash out or break terms at any given time. Money was created out of thin air based on future obligations. If all lending was fully collateralized, then any loan could be closed out at any time without risk of loss for either party. What creates the problems is the fractional reserve part.