I don't see why it's disingenuous? Investing is extremely risky, and I'm not convinced that he didn't just get lucky on the second bet. This isn't ok because t

I don't see why it's disingenuous? Investing is extremely risky, and I'm not convinced that he didn't just get lucky on the second bet. This isn't ok because the original investor was paid off. That's also how Ponzi schemes work - the original investors are paid off (I know, here the money seems to be generated from Retrophin, but the behavior is the same). This gave me a perspective: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-shkreli-accused-of-being-surprisingly-good-at-fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2015-12-17/martin-sh...