Telegram co-founder Pavel Durov will divide his estimated $117 billion fortune among his 106 plus children upon his death, he said: The kids include those who were naturally conceived and as a sperm donor
  • MrSulu@lemmy.mlEnglish
    412·
    2 days ago

    Clickbait article. Overwhelming majority of his children are from sperm donation. Not many people would split their inheritance that way so that’s good. There are far far shittier parents. I’m Not saying that he’s a saint!

  • Trimatrix@lemmy.worldEnglish
    54·
    2 days ago

    By no means is having 106 children normal or sane. But now I have a legit answer when someone says, “Why would anyone need $1 Billion.” I can now say, “So each of my 100 kids can get $10Million in inheritance money.”

    10mil is still “set for life” territory just with an added debuff of, “If managed and invested carefully”

    • jonne@infosec.pubEnglish
      19·
      2 days ago

      Geneticists in a thousand years are going to have questions about a sudden boom in certain gene markers around this time if they don’t have the added context of billionaires deciding they’re the master race by virtue of being billionaires.

    • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      1 day ago

      Actually works out to 160m per kid. So if they make meh investments like putting it all in U.S. bonds, they can get about 7 million in interest to live off of every year.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
    18·
    2 days ago

    So if one of his offspring were to kill another one of his offspring the murdering offspring’s share goes up (along with all the other surviving offspring)? This sounds like a dangerous announcement.

    • Godric@lemmy.worldEnglish
      101·
      2 days ago

      In fairness, offing someone means your share goes up less than 1%, making the risk-reward for murder math out beneficial for everyone.

      However, if that 17 billion was split between two or three children, we might have the beginning of an Agatha Christie novel.

          • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            1 day ago

            That would be split between 105 people. So it’s really, you get 160 million or 161.6 million with a chance of life in prison.

            Just put the money in a savings account with at least 1% interest and you’ll make the extra in the first year

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        1 day ago

        In fairness, offing someone means your share goes up less than 1%, making the risk-reward for murder math out beneficial for everyone.

        Less than 1% (106 kids), so each share would be $160m each. However, if the murdering offspring has crossed the line into murder, why stop at just one murder? A single murder would net each surviving offspring an extra $1.5M. This also assumes there is only one murdering offspring. As soon as the first murder occurs there might be a second or third copycat murderer. With only 90 surviving offspring each survivor is getting a cool $188m each.

        However, if that 17 billion was split between two or three children, we might have the beginning of an Agatha Christie novel.

        Maybe not an Agatha Christie book, but the interesting novel would arrive where in the story one of the offspring figures out this math, and identifies common locations where more than one offspring would be at one time. So a single incident would net them multiple hits, and be hidden from obvious intent.

        “Tonight, sadness grips the city as the roof of the Claridon Center Arena fell in during the sold out concert. At this hour officials confirm 37 dead as the search for survivors continues. No cause has been reported for the roof failure yet.”

        “A city bus was engulfed in flames when a stolen fuel tank truck collided with it at high speeds. There were no survivors on the bus carrying 42 people. Curiously, the tank truck driver escaped unharmed at is being sought by police even now for questioning.”

  • over_clox@lemmy.worldEnglish
    131·
    2 days ago

    Okay, can we get the facts straight OP?

    Is it $17 billion or $117 billion?

    The article says $17 billion, but you typed $117 billion in the post body…

    • Tony Bark@pawb.socialOPEnglish
      25·
      2 days ago

      Pavel Durov, 40, told the French outlet Le Point in an interview about his decision to allocate his fortune. He’s worth about $17.1 billion, per Forbes.

      The headline is correct, according to the article. Must have just been an oversight.