First it's factual. By qualifying it as "ridiculous" serves what purpose exactly? The point is that $1MM is used as an example and you could swap that amount wi

First it's factual. By qualifying it as "ridiculous" serves what purpose exactly? The point is that $1MM is used as an example and you could swap that amount with $50MM, $100MM to showcase greater gains in exponentially less time. That is the point the article is making overall. No billionaire is going to harbor $1MM in a trust with the intent to have some heir pull it out in 200 years. But the people with those means can leverage the same monetary vehicle to do the same thing in much shorter time frames with higher initial investment. > That said ... this is the premise of some entertaining science fiction. Or not. None of it it fictional. Feel free to clarify what you mean, but the only thing fictional is the entirety of your comment.