Retroactive analysis like this is almost worthless because these were incredibly risky investments in the moment and would have required a prolonged commitment to them that most didn't have and/or couldn't maintain. Considering the original claim here was that getting these returns wasn't possible without already being wealthy, you might as well ask why OP didn't get a loan to make these investments if they were such a sure thing.
GP asked how it could be possible, this is how. GGP suggested that he'd made such an investment, just at too low a principle amount to see such huge returns. If so, it doesn't matter that the investment was risky; the Sith lord in question made the investment in 2017, and would be looking at crazy returns today if he'd had $100k to put into it, rather than whatever sum he actually did.
As to
>why OP didn't get a loan to make these investments if they were such a sure thing.
You could ask him. Perhaps he didn't qualify. There are people who did this; depending on entry timing, you would certainly have seen enough returned to at least cover interest payments.
The article talks about Saquon’s bitcoin investments and investments in startups. The same argument can be made there as well.
Yes, I have made the same argument elsewhere in this thread saying there is little reason to believe Saquon's record of successful investing is due to anything but luck (and access due to his celebrity)[1], but at the very least he does have a track record of actually making those investments while your comment was purely a retroactive hypothetical.
[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45131713
Fair point.
But I will say that Saquon has access to deal flow that most of us will never have access to (they mentioned Anthropic and Stripe, for example).
And that was my original point.
> If I had access to private markets like startups, it would be worth even more.
If you (a retail investor) had access to private markets, they wouldn’t be private markets, they’d be public markets.