No, not really. I did say earlier in the thread it is ironic that delivering the trees could make it closer to a Ponzi scheme. But, I still maintain that the key component of encouraging future investment by creating the appearance of high rate of return, accomplished by satisfying initial investors, is not present here. The fact that it's an order, not an investment, is also problematic for the definition, imo.
I think I've been real about the problems in this venture throughout the thread. I've questioned how realistic it is; I've suggested James has already run out of money from the 2016 orders, meaning he's getting the money somewhere else (could be his pocket). I've stated that if the money for the 2017 orders is being used to fund the initial trees that that borders on being a Ponzi scheme.
You, on the other hand, will apparently only be happy with one conclusion. Something can be bad or wrong without it being a Ponzi scheme. But you seem determined to call it that. Ok, you call it what you like. Discussion with you appears to be fruitless.