This seems pretty plausible to me. One thing I would note is that I think for many EAs who would seriously consider becoming a billion-dollar startup founder at all, their ex ante odds won’t look as good as SBF’s did in 2017 before founding Alameda (now FTX).
A second point I will note is that on the other hand, their classical earning-to-give odds are also much worse. In particular, I think for a lot of founder profiles (e.g), their lower-variance earning-to-give alternatives look more like “mid-level software manager making ~mid- to high- six figures”, not “high seven or even eight figures in trading.”
This seems pretty plausible to me. One thing I would note is that I think for many EAs who would seriously consider becoming a billion-dollar startup founder at all, their ex ante odds won’t look as good as SBF’s did in 2017 before founding Alameda (now FTX).
A second point I will note is that on the other hand, their classical earning-to-give odds are also much worse. In particular, I think for a lot of founder profiles (e.g), their lower-variance earning-to-give alternatives look more like “mid-level software manager making ~mid- to high- six figures”, not “high seven or even eight figures in trading.”
I agree Alameda seemed like an unusually good opportunity at the time.