There's no promise of any kind. That's rather important.
A ponzi scheme would be where an operator enrolls investors by promising high interest rates on their investments, lacking the ability to actually pay everyone in full. Such a scheme typicalyl runs until enough people decide to withdraw their investment that the operator decides they can't afford the payouts and instead defaults and runs off with the money.
Bitcoin has no operator making promises. The protocol itself makes no promise of profits for investors. The developers have quite explicitly stated treating Bitcoin as an investment is risky. Furthermore, while the experiment that is Bitcoin may well fail some time in the future, it is not obvious to an impartial observer that it will. A Ponzi scheme is inherently unsustainable, in a way obvious to anyone willing to ignore their greed. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is an unknown, a risky investment, but openly so.
I get the feeling you have a beef with how early adopters are rewarded more than later users, and that's why you're saying Bitcoin is a Ponzi. Early adopters *are* rewarded, assuming the system doesn't crash and burn. That's no secret. It's part of the design. The idea is that there needs to be an incentive to get people to commit to the system, to make it costly to let it fail. The longer the system runs and grows, the less risky it should get to pump funds into it. Accordingly, the rewards for doing so will diminish as well.
Whether the rewards reaped by old-timers are reasonable or not is a matter of constant debate, and several forks of the system exist largely because of disagreements on this point. Personally, I don't think in the long run it will matter much. If Bitcoin fails for one reason or another, the early adopters will lose their investment. If it doesn't, they'll be rich, but continued operation of the system will be proof it didn't make much of a difference that a few individuals got very wealthy off the backs of later adopters.