I’d be very curious how far EAG could go by just focusing on Soylent / Huel / Mealsquares.
I can imagine you could get pretty serious savings by making a deal with a small number of brands for a large purchase. I would suspect EA’s account for a serious proportion of these brand’s revenue, and EAG’s are the ideal place for them to market to new EA’s and EA adjacent individuals, so they’d stand to gain a lot from even just providing merchandise at-cost.
Also, when hosting retreats, Soylent was always the most in demand item.
I have not loved the catering at past EAG events (EAG London, EAG SF, EAG DC… the exception was EAGx Boston, whose catering I thought was very good. Though no disrespect to CEA—I’ve handled event catering and it is hell. ). At all of these, I actually would have preferred it if instead of some (most) catered meals there were just assorted Huels (There has been soylent—but I can’t stand soylent).
Lastly, I think this would be pretty funny. It’s a pretty severe change, but I’d be curious to see how EAG participants would respond to this if proposed in a survey, and it’s a fun visual symbol of “efficiency and cost effectiveness vibes” so there’s some signaling benefit.
Perhaps outing my lack of math knowledge, but better to ask than sit in ignorance. In the simple model, why is it
V[WX]=v(1−(1−f)r)∞∑i (1−r)i−1
instead of
V[WX]=v∞∑i (1−(1−f)r)i ?
(apologies for bad math notation haven’t asked a math question on the forum yet) essentially my question is, why is (1-(1-f)r) on the outside of the summation, instead of replacing r inside the summation? Doesn’t putting it on the outside mean that you are summing with the wrong risks? Like, if I put it on the inside, wouldn’t I get
V[WX] = v(1-(1-f)r) / ((1-f)r) ?