3 ms·

Right, if you give away $100,000 then post a video about it that makes $200,000, I call this a 50% margin not altruism of philanthropy,

by kcb 3y ago

Gigachad 3y ago
At least it doesn’t seem to be a net negative on the world. He could be using $100,000 to market crypto scams, or “prank” videos. Giving it to poor people, even if not from pure generosity, is far from the worst thing he could be doing.
- prepend 3y ago
  It’s definitely not the worst thing.
mynameisvlad 3y ago
He has said on multiple occasions that he puts all revenue towards future videos. There is no margin. The money eventually ends up in the hands of people that wouldn’t have otherwise had it.
- memefrog 3y ago
  He might do so for now, at the moment. That doesn't mean he will do so forever. How long did Amazon run with no margins to build up its business before it made money? How long has reddit been running unprofitably? He still has room to grow his business. And he can cash out quite easily. If he goes a year keeping just 20% of the revenue from his videos he'd make an absolute ton of money.
  - mynameisvlad 3y ago
    From everything he has said, he is not and has never been in it for the money. He could have cashed out many times now (he certainly has had the opportunity to, many times now) and lived out the rest of his life with that money. Is it technically possible? Sure. But he has made no indication that has ever been or will be the case so I don’t see why people are assuming it will happen. We shouldn’t be assuming the worst in people when they have shown no indication that this is the case.
- prepend 3y ago
  He’s definitely said that. But there’s no confirmation or audit or accountability. It’s like crypto companies saying on multiple occasions that they were solvent. The claim is also objectively disprovable since the man lives, has homes, etc. So he’s spending something on non-video things. And that’s ok. It’s just that “100% into future videos” is clearly not true. Maybe it’s 99.999%. Maybe it’s 0.001%. We don’t get to know unless he goes public or registers as a charity.
  - mynameisvlad 3y ago
    > He’s definitely said that. But there’s no confirmation or audit or accountability. It’s like crypto companies saying on multiple occasions that they were solvent. There’s also no proof that he’s lying, either. His entire schtick is to be the cool philanthropist and he has staked pretty much his entire reputation on this brand. He has no reason to lie and is in fact heavily incentivized to tell the truth to keep doing what he’s doing. There has not even been a sliver of an indication this is not the case. I get being pessimist, but this is ridiculous. > The claim is also objectively disprovable since the man lives, has homes, etc. So he’s spending something on non-video things. He’s not Mother Theresa and nobody claimed he was. > And that’s ok. It’s just that “100% into future videos” is clearly not true. Maybe it’s 99.999%. Maybe it’s 0.001%. This is pedantry at its finest. Everyone here is painting him as a selfish person only in it for the money and fame and this is what you have a problem with?
    - TheLML 3y ago
      In his most recent appearance on the Fragrance podcast he talked about no longer spending more than he has, as he's responsible for so many people's monthly paychecks. He has taken out loans in the past to cover that, apparently. Usually with upcoming deal brand payments as collateral (as those are sometimes paid up to 90 days after the deal)

Right, if you give away $100,000 then post a video about it that makes $200,000, I call this a 50% margin not altruism of philanthropy,

by kcb 3y ago

Right, if you give away $100,000 then post a video about it that makes $200,000, I call this a 50% margin not altruism of philanthropy,

Gigachad 3y ago

At least it doesn’t seem to be a net negative on the world. He could be using $100,000 to market crypto scams, or “prank” videos. Giving it to poor people, even if not from pure generosity, is far from the worst thing he could be doing.

prepend 3y ago
It’s definitely not the worst thing.

mynameisvlad 3y ago

He has said on multiple occasions that he puts all revenue towards future videos. There is no margin. The money eventually ends up in the hands of people that wouldn’t have otherwise had it.

memefrog 3y ago
He might do so for now, at the moment. That doesn't mean he will do so forever. How long did Amazon run with no margins to build up its business before it made money? How long has reddit been running unprofitably? He still has room to grow his business. And he can cash out quite easily. If he goes a year keeping just 20% of the revenue from his videos he'd make an absolute ton of money.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  From everything he has said, he is not and has never been in it for the money. He could have cashed out many times now (he certainly has had the opportunity to, many times now) and lived out the rest of his life with that money. Is it technically possible? Sure. But he has made no indication that has ever been or will be the case so I don’t see why people are assuming it will happen. We shouldn’t be assuming the worst in people when they have shown no indication that this is the case.
prepend 3y ago
He’s definitely said that. But there’s no confirmation or audit or accountability. It’s like crypto companies saying on multiple occasions that they were solvent. The claim is also objectively disprovable since the man lives, has homes, etc. So he’s spending something on non-video things. And that’s ok. It’s just that “100% into future videos” is clearly not true. Maybe it’s 99.999%. Maybe it’s 0.001%. We don’t get to know unless he goes public or registers as a charity.
- mynameisvlad 3y ago
  > He’s definitely said that. But there’s no confirmation or audit or accountability. It’s like crypto companies saying on multiple occasions that they were solvent. There’s also no proof that he’s lying, either. His entire schtick is to be the cool philanthropist and he has staked pretty much his entire reputation on this brand. He has no reason to lie and is in fact heavily incentivized to tell the truth to keep doing what he’s doing. There has not even been a sliver of an indication this is not the case. I get being pessimist, but this is ridiculous. > The claim is also objectively disprovable since the man lives, has homes, etc. So he’s spending something on non-video things. He’s not Mother Theresa and nobody claimed he was. > And that’s ok. It’s just that “100% into future videos” is clearly not true. Maybe it’s 99.999%. Maybe it’s 0.001%. This is pedantry at its finest. Everyone here is painting him as a selfish person only in it for the money and fame and this is what you have a problem with?
  - TheLML 3y ago
    In his most recent appearance on the Fragrance podcast he talked about no longer spending more than he has, as he's responsible for so many people's monthly paychecks. He has taken out loans in the past to cover that, apparently. Usually with upcoming deal brand payments as collateral (as those are sometimes paid up to 90 days after the deal)