Conversation

Replying to
10) What about a wackier bet? How about you only win 10% of the time, but if you do you get paid out 10,000x your bet size? (For now, let’s assume you only get to do this bet once.)
2
54
11) Kelly suggests you only bet $10k: you’ll almost certainly lose. And if you kept doing this much more than $10k at a time, you’d probably blow out. That this bet is great expected value; you win 1,000x your bet size, way better than the first one! It’s just very risky.
4
56
12) In many cases I think $10k is a reasonable bet. But I, personally, would do more. I’d probably do more like $50k. Why? Because ultimately my utility function isn’t really logarithmic. It’s closer to linear.
8
107
13) Sure, I wouldn’t care to buy 10,000 new cars if I won the coinflip. But I’m not spending my marginal money on cars anyway. I’m donating it. And the scale of the world’s problems is…. Huge.
6
143
14) 400,000 people die of malaria each year. It costs something like $5k to save one person from malaria, or $2b total per year. So if you want to save lives in the developing world, you can blow $2b a year just on malaria.
6
115
15) And that’s just the start. If you look at the scale of funds spent on diseases, global warming, emerging technological risk, animal welfare, nuclear warfare safety, etc., you get numbers reaching into the trillions.
5
76
16) So at the very least, you should be using that as your baseline: and kelly tells you that when the backdrop is trillions of dollars, there’s essentially no risk aversion on the scale of thousands or millions.
1
50
17) Put another way: if you’re maximizing EV(log(W+$1,000,000,000,000)) and W is much less than a trillion, this is very similar to just maximizing EV(W).
2
52
18) Does this mean you should be willing to accept a significant chance of failing to do much good sometimes? Yes, it does. And that’s ok. If it was the right play in EV, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
13
99
19) And more generally, if you look at everyone contributing to the cause as one portfolio--which is certainly true from the perspective of the child dying from malaria--they aren’t worried about who it was that funded their safety.
3
53
Replying to
21) Sometimes that means a startup, or an experimental field, or a bold play. Sometimes it means starting a charity or a movement. When it comes to the scales of money, better is bigger.
2
79
22) So given all that, why not bet all $100k? Why only $50k? Because if you bet $100k and lose, you can never bet again. And to the extent you think you have future ways to provide value that are contingent on having some amount of funding, it can be important to keep that.
4
76
23) So as we near the end of the year and you think about giving: think long-term and think big. If you can only give a little bit this year because everything else is helping you build out your career, that’s fine.
2
94
24) Do what you can to maximize the amount you can give long term, even if you’re not sure how it will end.
3
100
25) But if you’ve already made it--as many people who’ve held crypto this decade have--consider giving more than a little. Consider giving a lot. If there’s anything 2020 has taught us, it’s that the world needs it.
14
169
Replying to
yeah I think it's really important to give at least a little bit each year even if you think building capital is locally more important; it reminds you why you're there in the first place
1
1
Show replies
Replying to and
great thread! kinda in the situation of choosing a career path for my rest 30+ years. Got really bored by the current job. Thinking about give it a try in crypto, it may fail in the end, But I wont regret coz it could be something...at least something I can talk about to my kids
Show more replies