Conversation

A bit of a definitional issue -- the interpretation is mostly wrong; the solution is the correct solution to *a* question but not to *the right question to be asking*

Dan Robinson

@danrobinson

Dec 2, 2020

Replying to

@SBF_FTX

and

@SBF_Alameda

What makes it the wrong question?

Replying to

It's trying to maximize EV[log(money)] instead of EV[money]. This is probably wrong in and of itself as an assumption to make. But if you *do* want to make that assumption, then e.g. you have to consider all of your assets that don't have anything to do with the pool.

Replying to

and

Do you disagree with the Kelly criterion in general? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelly_cri

Replying to

So: 1) it's not literally *wrong* in that it doesn't make a math error 2) I disagree in general that Kelly is the right way for people to bet because I disagree with its assumptions 3) neither 1/2 are necessary for my argument: Kelly only works if you consider *all* your money

Replying to

and

There are other problematic assumptions snuck in here, e.g. a) the paper assumes that you can only do one or the other forever and can't ever take profit if you don't use an AMM b) the paper assumes that exponential increase in valuation can go on forever

Replying to

and

E.g. see what happens to the math if you assume: a) The person is only using 25% of their money in this particular USD/coin pair and 75% outside of the system b) you only expand out ~10 years

9:46 PM · Dec 2, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

I think it's also worth noting that if you had tweeted "AMM skeptics should consider what utility curves make sense for them and whether there are more cost efficient ways to manage their risk, in some extremely constrained cases AMMs might be a decent choice" I wouldn't disagree

Replying to

and

This is a relief—I fundamentally disagree (I was worried it was a mathematical rather than a philosophical disagreement!) My log-wealth-maximization maximalism has absolutely nothing to do with differences in individual utility functions

Show replies

Replying to

and

Other than having constructed a problem of significantly less theoretical interest?

Replying to

and

oof

Replying to

and

a) Assuming no rebalancing between the 25% and the 75% portfolio? Then my advice would be the same b) Come on, I thought an effective altruist would have a more timeless perspective!

Replying to

Heh -- so: a) I think that "hold for 10 years then sell some" is prob closer to what you get in some assumptions here b) more generally, though, an effective altruist would have a massively more linear utility function than log(money)

Show replies

Replying to

and

You might be surprised here. Similar results should hold at least for different utility functions and portfolio compositions. Do you have a proof to the contrary?

Replying to

and

well, e.g. if your utility function is linear then you never rebalance

Show replies