>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

>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!