3 ms·

I've seen this linked many times but only just now got around to reading it and... this is really embarrassing for the author. Never mind that the guy who he sa

I've seen this linked many times but only just now got around to reading it and... this is really embarrassing for the author. Never mind that the guy who he says will be a trillionaire one day turned out to be a fraud. The writing itself is awful. He starts by breathlessly describing how "risk neutral" SBF is and then not long after describes SBFs need for "extreme risk" when looking for his next venture (which led to FTX). He comes off as obsequious and uninformed. It's bizarre. He's also somewhat self aggrandizing. Like he knows something others don't. "I don't know how I know, I just do. SBF is a winner." My guy, SBF was allegedly worth 20+ billion already and you're predicting that he'll be a winner? It's like predicting that Brazil, up 4 goals at the half, will win the game.

bmitc 4y ago
> He comes off as obsequious and uninformed. It's bizarre. He's also somewhat self aggrandizing. Sounds like every venture capitalist to me. Most of them got lucky selling some random software company to Yahoo or some analogous route or riding the biggest tech and stock boom in history but come out thinking they’re oracles and literally better than everyone else. Couple that with cult of personality and the worship they get.
latchkey 4y ago
The author (who was hired to write the article) pinned tweet: https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590466104773992448 https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590466104773992448 and a follow up when called out on it: https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590805407949533184 https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590805407949533184 "Lots of lessons" indeed.
- atdrummond 4y ago
  Unrelated but any chance you could email me? I’m looking to buy/rent some RX Radeons for mining and your posts on the subject have been very helpful. Have some questions that I hope you could help with.
  - latchkey 4y ago
    Done!
SilasX 4y ago
>He starts by breathlessly describing how "risk neutral" SBF is and then not long after describes SBFs need for "extreme risk" when looking for his next venture (which led to FTX). I reviewed that part, and it's not a contradiction[1]. Risk-neutral is the opposite of being risk-averse, and so the former means you favor the riskier ventures. In the language of that paragraph, risk-neutral means you will spend $1 for a 50% + epsilon chance of winning $2, and spend $1 for a 1-in-a-million plus epsilon chance of $1,000,001. This risk-neutrality, of course, violates the Kelly Criterion and came back to bite him. [1] Which is not, of course, to defend the article generally!
- dopamean 4y ago
  Perhaps I misunderstood that part of the article. I understood it to meant that to be risk neutral one must be willing to do both but I wasn't seeing examples of both in the article. I was seeing glaring examples of "extreme" risk seeking.

bmitc 4y ago

> He comes off as obsequious and uninformed. It's bizarre. He's also somewhat self aggrandizing. Sounds like every venture capitalist to me. Most of them got lucky selling some random software company to Yahoo or some analogous route or riding the biggest tech and stock boom in history but come out thinking they’re oracles and literally better than everyone else. Couple that with cult of personality and the worship they get.

latchkey 4y ago

The author (who was hired to write the article) pinned tweet: https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590466104773992448 https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590466104773992448 and a follow up when called out on it: https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590805407949533184 https://twitter.com/AdamcFisher/status/1590805407949533184 "Lots of lessons" indeed.

atdrummond 4y ago
Unrelated but any chance you could email me? I’m looking to buy/rent some RX Radeons for mining and your posts on the subject have been very helpful. Have some questions that I hope you could help with.
- latchkey 4y ago
  Done!

SilasX 4y ago

>He starts by breathlessly describing how "risk neutral" SBF is and then not long after describes SBFs need for "extreme risk" when looking for his next venture (which led to FTX). I reviewed that part, and it's not a contradiction[1]. Risk-neutral is the opposite of being risk-averse, and so the former means you favor the riskier ventures. In the language of that paragraph, risk-neutral means you will spend $1 for a 50% + epsilon chance of winning $2, and spend $1 for a 1-in-a-million plus epsilon chance of $1,000,001. This risk-neutrality, of course, violates the Kelly Criterion and came back to bite him. [1] Which is not, of course, to defend the article generally!

dopamean 4y ago
Perhaps I misunderstood that part of the article. I understood it to meant that to be risk neutral one must be willing to do both but I wasn't seeing examples of both in the article. I was seeing glaring examples of "extreme" risk seeking.