Jamie Loftus

I don't know, but we have to read another one.

Quote, here SPF realized was the rub when he applied this.

principle to his own life, he came up short.

There was little chance he'd get himself fired from Jane Street.

Thus, the decision to stick with Jane was a risk-averse preference.

It was the logical equivalent of being offered a choice between $50 and 50% of $100 and saying, give me President Grant.

SBF was risk-neutral on behalf of Jane Street, but not, he realized, for his own life.

To be fully rational about maximizing his income on behalf of the poor, he should apply his trading principles across the board.

He had to find a risk-neutral career path.

Which, if we strip away the traitor jargon, actually means he needed to take on a lot more risk.

Oh, Jamie, you need to hear this.

Which, if we strip away the traitor jargon, actually means he felt he needed to take on a lot more risk in the hopes of becoming part of the global elite.

The math couldn't be clearer.

Very high risk multiplied by dynastic wealth.

Trump's low risk multiplied by mere rich guy wealth.

To do the most good for the world, SBF needed to find a path on which he'd be a coin toss away from going totally bust.

The path is risk neutral, but that means taking a lot of risk because the most risk is the only way to become the wealthiest person in the world.

And only by becoming the wealthiest person in the world can you avoid risk.

You get it, Jamie?

That's clearly the most logical, ethical way to live.