I'd be very curious how far EAG could go by just focusing on Soylent / Huel / Mealsquares.
I can imagine you could get pretty serious savings by making a deal with a small number of brands for a large purchase. I would suspect EA's account for a serious proportion of these brand's revenue, and EAG's are the ideal place for them to market to new EA's and EA adjacent individuals, so they'd stand to gain a lot from even just providing merchandise at-cost.
Also, when hosting retreats, Soylent was always the most in demand item.
I have not loved the catering at past EAG events (EAG London, EAG SF, EAG DC... the exception was EAGx Boston, whose catering I thought was very good. Though no disrespect to CEA - I've handled event catering and it is hell. ). At all of these, I actually would have preferred it if instead of some (most) catered meals there were just assorted Huels (There has been soylent - but I can't stand soylent).
Lastly, I think this would be pretty funny. It's a pretty severe change, but I'd be curious to see how EAG participants would respond to this if proposed in a survey, and it's a fun visual symbol of "efficiency and cost effectiveness vibes" so there's some signaling benefit.
Oh man, I really love this. I used to do door knocking / phone banking in high school and they were quite fun. What wasn't fun was I struggled to find candidates who I really believed in. But everything I've read about Carrick, and also meeting him, I think this is a really special opportunity to be part of something awesome. Count me in.
I have been trying to implement the learning by writing tips for the past four weeks, and have really felt the need for a community for feedback + accountability + expectation setting so I'm not totally alone in the wilderness. I can imagine many others feeling the same way - thank you for organizing this, and I think this is a really interesting model I would like to experiment with in my own community building.
Perhaps outing my lack of math knowledge, but better to ask than sit in ignorance. In the simple model, why is it
V[WX]=v∞∑i (1−(1−f)r)i ?
(apologies for bad math notation haven't asked a math question on the forum yet) essentially my question is, why is (1-(1-f)r) on the outside of the summation, instead of replacing r inside the summation? Doesn't putting it on the outside mean that you are summing with the wrong risks? Like, if I put it on the inside, wouldn't I get
V[WX] = v(1-(1-f)r) / ((1-f)r) ?