Conversation

SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
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
SBF
@SBF_FTX
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
SBF
@SBF_FTX
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
SBF
@SBF_FTX
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
Dan Robinson
@danrobinson
Replying to
@SBF_FTX
and
@SBF_Alameda
I think I would agree in the context of altruism, although with possibly a different framing that deemphasizes marginal utility of wealth. The world’s “portfolio” of effective altruists is somewhat diversified, since there are many EAs (though not as many as there should be).
2
8
Dan Robinson
@danrobinson
Replying to
@danrobinson
and
@SBF_Alameda
If the full set of effective altruists goes all in on the positive-EV bet, then that set will maximize its own wealth (AS WELL as, approximately, log wealth!) Because they’re altruists, they can then reallocate among themselves however best serves further portfolio wealth growth
1
3
SBF
@SBF_FTX
Replying to
@danrobinson
Yup agreed -- to the extent there's trust between EAs, it creates some really powerful effects. I think I've found this to be true but insufficiently so -- there are people willing to go way more out on a limb, and those people have done enormous amounts of good.
1
2