Dear Susan,

1) Ponzi scheme means that to finance previous war, Napoleon had to start another. This does not apply to the Paix d'Amiens period, when the economy thrieved just because of peace. No necessity for war to balance the budget, despite a costly reorganisation of army, with new uniforms, new materials, large units.
It could apply to 1810-1811, when France was at war "only" in Spain and at sea, and the economy suffered severe recession. But the economy resumed in 1812, despite the enormous funding of the invasion of Russia.
By the end of Empire, the financial situation was still rather good, with a deficit and war penalties that could be cleared in 10 years of peace (and believe me, that's quite fast - UK did not cleared Revolution and Empire debt up to the end of 20th century).
Also, with three years in a row without financial gain (1812-1814) , the Ponzi pyramid should have collapsed and the army and state would have been unpaid, at least after Leipzig. This was not the case.

2) Pensions came from foreign territories, but they were the exception for outstanding service, not the rule. In Six study, most of the colonel and generals did not have one. So top class officers would have been disgruntled, but this would not have affected the other officers, ready to supplement them. Napoleon had much more to lose if accepting the Peace of Amiens frontiers : loss of diplomatic and political lead, loss of military buffer in Germany and Italy, loss of major economical zones on Rhine and Po (pensions were nothing compared to international trade within Europe). Few head of state would have survived this, and without power Napoleon could not remain in France.