Reading the Eliezer thread, I think I agree with him that there’s no obvious financial gain for you if you hard-lock the money you’d have to pay back.
I don’t follow this comment. You’re saying Vasco gives you X now, 2X to be paid back after k years. You plan to spend X/2 now, and lock up X/2, but somehow borrow 3/(2X) money now, such that you can pay the full amount back in k years? I’m presumably misunderstanding—I don’t see why you’d make the bet now if you could just borrow that much, or why anyone would be willing to lend to you based on money that you were legally/technologically committed to giving away in k years.
One version that makes more sense to me is planning to pay back in installments, on the understanding that you’d be making enough money to do so at the agreed rate—though a) that comes with obviously increased counterparty risk, and b) it still doesn’t make much sense if your moneymaking strategy is investing money which you have rather than selling service/labour, since, again, it seems irrational for you to have any money at the end of the k-year period.
I don’t follow this comment. You’re saying Vasco gives you X now, 2X to be paid back after k years. You plan to spend X/2 now, and lock up X/2, but somehow borrow 3/(2X) money now, such that you can pay the full amount back in k years?
Nitpick. (3/2) X, not 3/(2 X).
If one expects investments to grow more (in real terms) than the product “cost-effectiveness of altruistic spending conditional on survival”*”probability of survival” will decrease, it makes sense to invest as much as possible now, and then donate as much as possible later. Funders of altruistic interventions should try to equalise the product I just mentioned across years (otherwise, they should move their spending from the worst to the best years).
Reading the Eliezer thread, I think I agree with him that there’s no obvious financial gain for you if you hard-lock the money you’d have to pay back.
I don’t follow this comment. You’re saying Vasco gives you X now, 2X to be paid back after k years. You plan to spend X/2 now, and lock up X/2, but somehow borrow 3/(2X) money now, such that you can pay the full amount back in k years? I’m presumably misunderstanding—I don’t see why you’d make the bet now if you could just borrow that much, or why anyone would be willing to lend to you based on money that you were legally/technologically committed to giving away in k years.
One version that makes more sense to me is planning to pay back in installments, on the understanding that you’d be making enough money to do so at the agreed rate—though a) that comes with obviously increased counterparty risk, and b) it still doesn’t make much sense if your moneymaking strategy is investing money which you have rather than selling service/labour, since, again, it seems irrational for you to have any money at the end of the k-year period.
Where I say “some of which I borrow against now (with 100% interest over 5 years)”, I’m referring to the bet.
Nitpick. (3/2) X, not 3/(2 X).
If one expects investments to grow more (in real terms) than the product “cost-effectiveness of altruistic spending conditional on survival”*”probability of survival” will decrease, it makes sense to invest as much as possible now, and then donate as much as possible later. Funders of altruistic interventions should try to equalise the product I just mentioned across years (otherwise, they should move their spending from the worst to the best years).