This line of reasoning is disappointingly unpopular. I think it fits a weird pattern of selection effects, where people get rich from very risky ventures (often retconned to have been savvy, precient business decisions) and it's implied that what they did was a good idea. Naturally there's no visibility for other crazy ventures that go nowhere, and it's much less fun to look at people who lost big by getting in on the top floor, chasing the success of people who were pretty smart, but very lucky.

Ultimately your expected marginal value for speculative investments where you don't have significant expertise or scale or regulatory capture or magical powers has to be negative.