EXCLUSIVE: Brian O’Kelley says he’s capped his wealth to $100 million. The tech founder tells Fortune, billionaires are wasteful, out of touch, and “othered” from real life.
To be fair, the article does mention that he’s considering using that as a way to fund his current startup if it ever needs a cash injection, rather than turning straight to more VCs, which is probably good in the long run in terms of reducing how much the company could have to cater toward predatory investors over customers, so I’d consider at least part of his remaining wealth just a means to fund a separate venture from his private life, but still, he probably does have more than enough even after that.
Also, I’d never heard of the Russian Nobleman paradox before, but I looked it up and it seems interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
I’m not criticizing him for keeping enough to keep him and his family comfortable for a few generations. Giving away a comma is a big request that he did without needing to be asked.
A young Russian nobleman intends to give his estate to peasants upon inheriting them. He also realizes that over time, his ideals might fade. Thus, he puts his ideas down into a legal document that can only be revoked by his wife. He makes her promise not to consent if he changes his mind later on.
At the time, he argues these core beliefs are an essential part of him, stating: “If I lose these ideals, I want you to think that I cease to exist.”
Now suppose 50 years later, he changes his mind and asks his wife to revoke the documents. The wife made a promise to the young nobleman. Is the old nobleman, with all his memories and new beliefs, the same person as the young nobleman? What should she do?
Obviously as she promised, it doesn’t matter what happens after that. Promises are made to be kept, don’t make them unless you keep them. Only good reasons I can think of for breaking a promise would be something like if you were lied to when making that promise, or saving lives or maybe prevent nature destruction etc. Old dude changing his mind isn’t a proper reason; if he feels like he was young and stupid back then, that’s his problem
Maybe I’m missing something, seems like an easy “paradox” to solve:
The legal regime recognizes the person as the same person, proven by the very premise of the question, that the older nobleman retains ownership over the funds. The wife should honor the promise because she made the promise with a person continuous with the younger nobleman in the relevant aspect (it is legal document). The fact that the older nobleman has different beliefs is irrelevant because the question already concedes primacy to the law, implicit in the law protecting the older gentleman’s right to dictate disposition of the funds. Someone enlighten me if I’m missing the point?
Now… if the younger nobleman disclaimed his old self and all prior inheritance (or had amnesia and lost all connection to his prior self), and built a new fortune somehow covered by the earlier promise, that would be a more interesting question. Then the person may not be continuous for ethical/duty purposes yet still continuous for legal purposes.
I felt like this guy was doing the right thing but the amount of visual pollution he must have enabled in his career is wild. I hope it keeps him up at night.
Russian Nobleman paradox. 100 million is still a lot though. Company was AppNexus, name rings a bell. Sold to AT&T.
Even still, $100m is more than enough to live a very comfortable life and secure your family’s future. No one needs $1b.
What about $300b though?
That’s like, occasionally order off the value menu rich
To be fair, the article does mention that he’s considering using that as a way to fund his current startup if it ever needs a cash injection, rather than turning straight to more VCs, which is probably good in the long run in terms of reducing how much the company could have to cater toward predatory investors over customers, so I’d consider at least part of his remaining wealth just a means to fund a separate venture from his private life, but still, he probably does have more than enough even after that.
Also, I’d never heard of the Russian Nobleman paradox before, but I looked it up and it seems interesting. Thanks for sharing it.
I’m not criticizing him for keeping enough to keep him and his family comfortable for a few generations. Giving away a comma is a big request that he did without needing to be asked.
TIL
If the old nobleman is considered a different person than his younger self - then the entire concept of promises is voided.
Obviously as she promised, it doesn’t matter what happens after that. Promises are made to be kept, don’t make them unless you keep them. Only good reasons I can think of for breaking a promise would be something like if you were lied to when making that promise, or saving lives or maybe prevent nature destruction etc. Old dude changing his mind isn’t a proper reason; if he feels like he was young and stupid back then, that’s his problem
Count Theseuski
Maybe I’m missing something, seems like an easy “paradox” to solve:
The legal regime recognizes the person as the same person, proven by the very premise of the question, that the older nobleman retains ownership over the funds. The wife should honor the promise because she made the promise with a person continuous with the younger nobleman in the relevant aspect (it is legal document). The fact that the older nobleman has different beliefs is irrelevant because the question already concedes primacy to the law, implicit in the law protecting the older gentleman’s right to dictate disposition of the funds. Someone enlighten me if I’m missing the point?
Now… if the younger nobleman disclaimed his old self and all prior inheritance (or had amnesia and lost all connection to his prior self), and built a new fortune somehow covered by the earlier promise, that would be a more interesting question. Then the person may not be continuous for ethical/duty purposes yet still continuous for legal purposes.
AppNexus is a cloud-based software platform that enables and optimizes programmatic online advertising. It was founded in 2007…
Yeah, I would feel bad keeping all of the money from that, too.
I felt like this guy was doing the right thing but the amount of visual pollution he must have enabled in his career is wild. I hope it keeps him up at night.