what if rich people are actually dumb, like they are dumb enough to pursue money and sacrifice for money, even though its overall not worth it?

[_MVP_]

.

 

[Aurelius74]

@Seth Walsh I would like to hear your take

 

[_MVP_]

so the question is: what all is worth sacrificing for?

and the answer is: not much

 

[_MVP_]

its the rationality of impossibility

 

[_MVP_]

c what all FEELS worth it?

 

[Zeuxx]

there is no association between iq and success in life, not stupid or smart

 

[Seth Walsh]

I will answer.

 

[Seth Walsh]

@Seth Walsh I would like to hear your take

My unfiltered take.

@_MVP_ is incorrectly treating "sacrifice" as the variable that determines wealth. Just "sell your soul for money broooooooo" is baseless thinking and troll-y.

To make money through "sacrifice" you must ensure that said sacrifices awards you permanent control + ownership + compounding exposure + continuity.

Here's some distinctions pertaining to time, earnings, and real wealth.

Sacrifice for cash (wages) vs sacrifice for equity (assets).
Trading time for money caps upside. Trading time for ownership creates a claim on future cashflows.

Capital control beats effort.
Wealth is largely the ability to allocate capital (your own or borrowed) into positive-EV bets, repeatedly, while avoiding ruin.

Incentives and constraints determine outcomes.
If your payoff is linear (salary) and your downside is high (debt, fragility), “working harder” mostly increases burn and risk. If your payoff is convex (equity, royalties, scalable distribution), the same effort compounds.

Compounding requires continuity.
Most people “sacrifice” in ways that reset the compounding clock: switching paths, selling winners early, lifestyle inflation, or taking fragility risks that force exits.

Staying in the game is the meta-skill.
The rich aren’t always the most sacrificial; they’re the ones who avoid wipeouts, keep exposure, and let time do the work.


A cleaner model:
Wealth ≈ (ownership share) × (cashflow scale) × (growth rate) × (time in market) − (leakage + drawdowns).
So the real critique: it’s not “sacrifice doesn’t make you rich.” It’s sacrifice without ownership, control, and continuity doesn’t compound, and non-compounding sacrifice is indistinguishable from self-imposed scarcity.
Now for a proof and case study of someone who "sacrificed for money".

MR BEAST. Jimmy Donaldson.

Unimpressive to practically everyone. Anodyne. People do NOT buy into his character. People do not get upset if he doesn't show up in his videos.
His brand IS THE SYSTEM. He can swap out members of his crew. Shit.. he could even swap Jimmy Kimmel or some mainstream normie into his formulaic videos and earn just as much money.
His systems churn away. He creates more money making systems. (Mr Beast burger, feastables, YouTube videos, merch, YT shorts monetization and domination of niche audience's attention (Gen-alpha brainrot), Beast games (amazon platform licencing), equity appreciation in his companies, IP and invested holdings, international YT channel arbitrage (Spanish Mr Beast YT content), philantropy content funding arbitrage (donations + sponsors recycled into content that still monetizes).
Core insight: Ad revenue is no longer the driver. Owned brands + IP + distribution control dominate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example for hyperbole of my point.
David Goggins. Pure sacrifice. Extreme workrate in all areas of life.

• Output tied to his body and presence: speaking, books, appearances.
• No owned distribution engine with leverage comparable to a media flywheel.
• No repeatable, delegated production system.
• No high-margin consumer brand compounding on attention.

Result: revenue scales linearly with effort, not exponentially with ownership.

Goggins never created SYSTEMS THAT SCALE, alongside permanent ownership of those systems.

Mr Beast turns over his balance sheet aggressively and pours money into systems that compound for him, with no regret.

FINAL ANSWER:

What creates massive wealth = Systems that scale exponentially with ownership

What does not create massive wealth = Work that scales LINEARLY with EFFORT.


Jimmy knew that counting to 100,000 in 2015, or saying Logan Paul 10,000 times, was NOT what would create generational wealth. There's good reason he has not done that in 10+ years.

He does not need to captivate an audience. He just needs to own systems that scale exponentially.


@Chut Sucker

 

[Aurelius74]

My unfiltered take.

Very high IQ , read every single word, didn't understood some terminologies but I googled em.

switching paths

I was preparing engineering uni entrance, my cousin did B.Tech on Computer Science with diploma in finance, he got hired by Jane Street Honk Kong. He's makes 165k$

I'll be pursuing Computer Science+ Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning to keep up with AI. I am just following his path & I hope to get lucky. Am I being dumb in this case ?

selling winners early

Do you believe in small scale Trading ? A japanese trader become centi-millionaire with his inheritence money.

 

[Aurelius74]

Very high IQ , read every single word, didn't understood some terminologies but I googled em.


I was preparing engineering uni entrance, my cousin did B.Tech on Computer Science with diploma in finance, he got hired by Jane Street Honk Kong. He's makes 165k$

I'll be pursuing Computer Science+ Artificial Intelligence & Machine Learning to keep up with AI. I am just following his path & I hope to get lucky. Am I being dumb in this case ?


Do you believe in small scale Trading ? A japanese trader become centi-millionaire with his inheritence money.

View attachment 4483359

@Seth Walsh Incase you forgot to reply me

 

[irrumator praetor]

Goggins never created SYSTEMS THAT SCALE, alongside permanent ownership of those systems.

lmfao he drinks his own koolaid