> Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss won $65 million from the Facebook lawsuit, and invested $11 million of their payout into Bitcoin in 2013, amassing one of the largest portfolios of Bitcoin in the world — 1 percent of the entire currency’s dollar value equivalent, said the twins at the time. Their slice of the Bitcoin pie is now worth over $1 billion after Bitcoin surged past $10,000 last week to now trade at $11,100

https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/4/16732952/winklevoss-twins...

A comment from 2013 on HN saying it's hilarious that savvy investors like the Winklevosses would put money in such an obvious ponzi:

> This is clearly illuminating the Ponzi-like elements of Bitcoin. As in a Ponzi scheme, early arrivals to the system earn easy money, funded by later arrivals. Tales of bitcoin fortunes draw more and more entry to the system, leading to large payoffs for second stage arrivals, attracting more speculators due to the media attention and very real money that has been made by early players. This continues until, oh, wait, bitcoins aren't so easy to mine anymore and there's no new wave of incoming money to pay of the next generation of miners.

> The hilarious thing is that Bitcoin is quite transparent about exactly how it works, while a real Ponzi scheme goes to great lengths to hide this dynamic. Anyone can see this dynamic in the rising price and the increasing CPU time needed to mine a new coin. And yet, brilliant, savvy investors like the Winklevosses are somehow still getting involved...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5570422

I'd be so tempted to take my $32.5M and retire for life. Pretty gutsy to invest 17% of your wealth in a single early stage technology when they did. I guess retiring on $27M instead wouldn't be so bad either though if it bombs.

Investing 17% when you are worth 65 mil is different than when you are worth 65 k.

If you fail, you'll have just one vacation house in Miami instead of two. I could live with that.

How different, I wonder?

First assume that the 65 mil and 65 k are the amounts that each person has above what they truly need to survive. Like, above a living wage.

Economists often say the value of money is roughly logarithmic as it goes up, which would mean that both of those two people would lose exactly the same utility.

But this would imply otherwise. Does 17% of 65 million truly have less utility than 17% of 65k? (Some people would argue it has more.)

> Economists often say the value of money is roughly logarithmic as it goes up, which would mean that both of those two people would lose exactly the same utility.

Your conclusion contradicts the first part of your statement.

https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/utl...

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/12309/concepts/diminishin...

Here's a counter argument: It probably depends on your aspirations. If you want to be a billionaire and you make $65k/year that $11k probably has low utility because you're so far from your goal and there are social and government safety nets to help you if you fall into poverty. But at $65M, that $11M might be one of only 3 or 4 shots you have at investing in a moonshot and making your $1B.

But, if your goal is to just feed yourself and vacation every once in a while than I could see how the value of money increases logarithmically.

If you view yourself as a company or an investor though, it might increase in value as you accumulate more because it puts you in an elite group that can invest in billion+ dollar ideas that could change the world.

ln(65m) - ln(65m - 65m x .17) == ln(65k) - ln(65k - 65k x .17)

Having $65K is quite different from having a guaranteed living wage for your entire life plus $65K.