If I am underwear, then you are underoos? lol Anyway, on to the questions you posed...
I liked your reasoning and your definition of a scam, but to be honest with you... you haven't covered all the bases. OS actually described another type of scam... one in which the outstanding share count is kept relatively stable without big dilution. BUT, insider(s) simply pump and mislead folks... and obviously either buy low & sell high on every coordinated pump... or, they simply sell shares that they've had for a long time, a little at a time (a portion of millions and millions of original shares acquired). A scheme like that could keep a person in-the-money for years. WITHOUT dilution. The more simple schemes, I agree as you said, simply involve massive dilution and reverse splits. This obviously isn't that type of scenario. You following my reasoning on this? You are only describing one type of "scam".
About you saying that the CEO identity and past, etc, are unrelated to the business. I disagree, as principles of a company ARE very much relevant to a business and its prospects, and whatnot. Now, does that 100% mean that there couldn't be a real business? No. Only insiders truly know that answer.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
