At 100% it's a brilliant scam because you can collect the EV of your income, then not do any work. Or do open-source work and build your career, or price yourse

At 100% it's a brilliant scam because you can collect the EV of your income, then not do any work. Or do open-source work and build your career, or price yourself extremely low as a consultant and build a network, then improve your rate once the window is open. There are some weird nonlinearities to this problem. For example, if 1% of a typical top-25 college STEM major's (lifetime) income is worth $50,000, then my estimation is that 10 percent is actually worth $1-2 million (20 to 40 times more). Why? Because, with that money and the cushion, he'll be able to take more risks and have a better career. But then at 50-100%, you get a Laffer-curve effect. So the value of N-percent of someone's income is: (a) faster-than-linearly increasing for a while (career benefits) until it peaks and plummets (Laffer effect). (b) not necessarily well-defined, because the infusion of capital has career-building effects that mean it might be better to give more money (for equivalent percentage).