
Lottery winner asking a judge to let her keep the cash and remain anonymous - monsieurpng
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/all-she-has-to-do-to-collect-a-dollar560-million-lotto-jackpot-is-make-her-name-public-she-refuses/ar-BBJ4Jsr
======
wgerard
I hope she wins. There's a pretty funny (or sad, I suppose) reddit comment
about winning the lottery that seems pretty true:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/24vzgl/you_just_won_a_656_million_dollar_lottery_what_do/chba4bf/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskReddit)

Winning the lottery (publicly, at least) seems to be a real monkey's paw wish.

~~~
kodablah
> I hope she wins

I'm not sure I do. She opted into a transparent system and gets the down side
that comes with it (or opts out). If this was thrust upon her, I might feel
different. I fear the precedent this would set for redacting names from Forbes
lists and the like. It's one of those unfortunate occurrences where openness
and privacy are in conflict and when it's government actions like this,
arresting someone, awarding some other monies to someone, etc I think openness
should prevail.

~~~
baddox
I don’t see the value in sticking to this legal technicality. She could have
accepted the ticket using an anonymous trust, but since she signed it with her
own name instead, she’s not allowed to change it. Since anonymous trusts are
already legal there, there’s no threat of “losing openness.”

I mean come on, that’s such a petty technicality for such a massive life
event. Just let her set up the anonymous trust and move the ticket to it.

~~~
kodablah
I don't really appreciate skirting "technicalities", especially in a
precedent-setting legal decision. If the law is wrong (or even if the
spirit/intent of the law does not apply here), she should win and the law
should change or be struck down. I wouldn't mind if the judge decided "it's
illegal to make someone who signed a lottery ticket with their real name not
change to a trust and keep their name hidden." But I would mind if the judge
decided "I feel sorry for her, in this one instance she can remain anonymous."

~~~
coldtea
> _If the law is wrong (or even if the spirit /intent of the law does not
> apply here), she should win and the law should change or be struck down._

That's orthogonal. What you propose translates to that while the law is not
changed (which can take decades in some cases) we should let people suffer
rather than "skip technicalities" when we can.

How about sodomy laws (still present in some jurisdictions). Should they be
imposed upon gay men until those laws change? And no biggie if people suffer
in the meantime?

~~~
kodablah
> That's orthogonal. What you propose translates to that while the law is not
> changed (which can take decades in some cases) we should let people suffer
> rather than "skip technicalities" when we can.

You misunderstand me. I am saying if the law is wrong, she should win (and so
should everyone else, every time, while the law is wrong). I am also saying if
the law is wrong, it should change or be struck down. I am not saying she
should lose until the law is changed.

------
sosuke
If you don't happen to read the article and think to mention the anonymous
trust way of accepting the winnings. She can't do that either.

"The state allows people to form an anonymous trust, NewHampshire.com
reported, but it’s a moot point for the woman — she signed her name on the
back of the ticket shortly after winning, and altering the signature would
nullify the ticket."

Oh and an excellent tidbit out of the story is that the attorney representing
her actually blogged about the winner having been in NH and how the winner
should not sign the back of the ticket. Apparently the ticket winner is now
using that attorney to represent her in the courts.
[https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-
Blog/2018/...](https://www.shaheengordon.com/New-Hampshire-Legal-
Blog/2018/January/Attorney-William-Shaheen-Has-Advice-for-New-Powe.aspx)

~~~
giarc
So moral of the story is to never sign your ticket.

Looks like some lucky person was smart enough to do that.

"In 2016, the last winner of the Powerball followed that advice. The $487
million prize claimed through the Robin Egg 2016 Nominee Trust, which was
created by Shaheen, and he serves as its trustee."

~~~
greggarious
> So moral of the story is to never sign your ticket.

But doesn't this mean if someone can assault you and steal the ticket they can
claim it themselves? Sounds like both have risks :/

~~~
giarc
Someone can assault you and steal your wallet. Does this prevent you from
carrying a wallet?

~~~
newbuser
Do you carry millions in cash around in your wallet?

~~~
giarc
I wouldn't walk around with a million dollar ticket in my pocket, nor tell
people. You're really reaching here.

------
tlb
I understand why people don't want everyone to know they're rich. I'm rich
(not $560M, but some) and you can figure that out from various news stories,
and it does affect relationships somewhat. More so outside Silicon Valley.

On the other hand, I understand why lotteries want to publicize winners in
their marketing.

A fair deal might be, that the publicity value is defined to be X% (say 10%)
of the prize, and you can take the full prize with publicity, or the prize -
X% anonymously.

~~~
jonlucc
If I'm not mistaken, it's about more than just publicity; it's also about
avoiding fraud. As someone put it before "come spend money on a chance to win
a very large pot of money; don't worry, we have given some out before, but you
just have to believe us".

~~~
baddox
But in this case she would have been allowed to accept the ticket under an
anonymous trust. The only problem is that she signed the ticket, and there is
an incredibly stupid legal technicality which prevents you from changing the
signature.

It is ludicrous that it would take a judge more than a few hours to review the
law and make a decision to allow her to change the ticket to an anonymous
trust.

~~~
ASalazarMX
I hope she wins because that requisite is dumb. You can endorse a $50 check
but you can't endorse a multimillion lottery ticket?

------
nebulous1
The lottery/state officials' story seems to be somewhat at odds with itself.

They say that they have to be open (makes sense) but they also allow you to
claim via an anonymous trust, but she can't do that because she signed it.
Feels like they could privately identify her to make sure she's the name on
the ticket and then do the public part via a trust.

This might not fit the way the relevant laws are written, but they can't say
that they're fighting in the interest of openness by not allowing this but
allowing the anonymous trust in the first place.

~~~
jvagner
Because the lottery commission isn't responsible for the legalities of the
anonymous trust, state law is.

They don't want to be involved in that, but they're willing to use an
externally valid mechanism, which they can't influence.

Personally, there was a way to stay anonymous, and she goofed it up. No sense
in changing the system for someone who can't help themselves.

The lottery commission shouldn't be allowed to hide results.

~~~
snoman
I think nebulous1 is is pointing out that it's one thing to say "We're just
following the letter of the law to the best of our ability, because we want to
be 100% above board." It's another thing to say "We're fighting in the
interest of openness."

That is to say: don't pretend to be some white knight for principles when
you're actually just trying to CYA. Be honest.

------
jonbarker
Related: I wonder if any analysis on the life outcomes of another jackpot
system, "sold company for a windfall", have been done. I appreciate the bad
lotto result stories because they confirm my correct bias that lotto should
not be played because it is a tax on not understanding probability (except at
about 350M for powerball, in which case your enemy is not expected value but
variance). However, no such analysis seems to have been done on the startup
ecosystem, which generally relies on big exit stories for 'free marketing'.

~~~
PaulRobinson
As somebody who lived as a professional gambler for a while, I would agree
that your assessment of value of most lotteries is correct: they are poor
value and should be avoided.

However, we're not expecting people to deploy Kelly criterion here, nobody is
playing lotto for EV and a need to maximise returns on known value parameters.

But I play lotto. And I know all this more than most. I have literally paid my
rent with money earned from understanding this and exploiting it. WTF am I
doing playing poor odd games?

When you're playing $5k to win $5k on something where you think true odds are
more like 55% in your favour, you are doing so most likely knowing $5k is 10%
of your total bank (based on Kelly), and that you're 45% likely to lose.
You're going to hopefully play over and over again and in the long run make
money.

When you're playing $2 to win $100m, do you actually care?

The $2 is likely such a tiny part of your bank that you could literally lose
it down the back of the sofa and not care, but the payout is so large and
life-changing, that not having access to that very remote possibility - given
the cost is so tiny and marginal and unnoticeable - is short-sighted.

Yes, the maths don't work from a probability angle, but arguing that playing
the lottery is a tax on ignorance is juvenile and short-sighted. Optimising
your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't leave a single
grain of rice on your plate at dinner.

The maths of starting a business are pretty harsh, the costs of failure are
higher and yet still, many people choose to do it. Are they fools? Perhaps.
But they consider the cost and potential payouts to be worth it.

See the bigger picture from time to time.

~~~
sigstoat
> The $2 is _likely_ such a tiny part of your bank...

and when it isn't a tiny part?

> Optimising your bank at that level is like trying to make sure you don't
> leave a single grain of rice on your plate at dinner.

many individuals playing the lottery are in a position like that, and
frequently spend significantly more than $2 in hopes of winning.

> See the bigger picture from time to time.

...seriously? nobody cares if people like you or me burn a few dollars on a
month on a lottery. the concern is for folks not in a position to do so.

~~~
soundwave106
What would be helpful in this discussion is a report on lottery spending per
capita, sorted by income level and other demographics. Currently I'm not
finding any out there. I do see a study showing that the average amount spent
per person in the US is around $200ish ([https://lendedu.com/blog/lottery-
study-report/](https://lendedu.com/blog/lottery-study-report/)), which doesn't
sound completely terrible. However, it is very probable that this number masks
widespread differences in spending habits.

I do find it problematic that states lean on a gambling game for revenue that
(due to the population distribution of typical lottery players) acts as a
defacto regressive tax. There's a side of me thinks this is rather
exploitative, particularly with the evidence that lottery advertising is
strongest in poor neighborhoods. ([https://www.wsj.com/articles/powerbull-the-
lottery-loves-pov...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/powerbull-the-lottery-
loves-poverty-1503868287))

With the recent emphasis in America of pooling together multiple states and
tweaking odds to produce these headline-grabbing 9 figure jackpots, one other
complaint: it's pretty clear to me that American lotteries fail to prepare
winners for the "consequence" of winning... that is, the huge amount of
financial planning and protection (even lifestyle and location changes, I'd
say, along with how to handle relationships with people you know), that is
necessary for having a public-known 9 figure asset base. Even lotteries that
reward 6 or 7 figures may come with some shocks, but leaping to that sort of
base is a whole other sort of ball game.

~~~
sigstoat
> I do see a study showing that the average amount spent per person in the US
> is around $200ish ([https://lendedu.com/blog/lottery-study-
> report/](https://lendedu.com/blog/lottery-study-report/)), which doesn't
> sound completely terrible.

i feel like that's pretty bad, next to an article like:

[https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/01/why-half-of-
americ...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/01/why-half-of-americans-
cant-come-up-with-400-in-an.aspx)

~~~
jonbarker
Is that annual? If it is anything like any other vice, basically it follows
the pareto principle, causing massive damage to a small subset of the
population which does most of the overuse. "Don't bet the rent money" very
much applies here.

------
xnet
In the UK, the National Lottery allows anonymous retrieval of the winnings and
yet there is still a very large amount of trust that there is no fraudulent
activity. The anonymity means you do not get financial advice from the lottery
trust which seems like a pretty fair trade off.

~~~
oldcynic
That is simply not true.

Any UK winner can opt for anonymity when collecting their prize. The National
Lottery give financial and legal advice regardless of your choice. Only around
20% opt for publicity.

~~~
drcode
A cynic would say "only 20% are known for sure to not be fake identities of
lottery administrators"

~~~
thaumasiotes
The fact that there's a person with a different name than a lottery
administrator shouldn't give you any additional confidence that that person
isn't just a fake identity of the lottery administrator. Based on the stated
facts, 0% are known for sure not to be fake identities of lottery
administrators.

For example, family members of giveaway administrators are generally
prohibited from winning, but how are you supposed to know who they are?

------
wenbin
This is what Chinese lottery winners do :)

[https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%BD%A9%E7%A5%A8%E9%A2%86%...](https://www.google.com/search?q=%E5%BD%A9%E7%A5%A8%E9%A2%86%E5%A5%96&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjaycTGy6PZAhUqiVQKHUEvC6cQ_AUICygC&biw=1384&bih=740)

------
tabeth
I honestly don't see the issue. The only reason the lotto works is because
people know you can win and it's not rigged, and the only way you can know
that is by making the winners public. Finally, the only reason said lottery
was $XXXM is because of the people who tried and failed, funding it. I doubt
lotteries would pay such large amounts long term if anonymous lotteries were
standard as fraud is inevitable.

Being able to take half a billion dollars of free money anonymously and safely
is hardly a right. I mean, you could simply not take it.

Seems fair to me. Am I missing something?

~~~
Erik816
The lottery works because people are driven by hope and are bad at (or don't
care about) math. No one goes around verifying that the people who won the
lottery actually get their money.

Why would fraud be inevitable if you were allowed to form an anonymous trust
before claiming your winnings? You still have to produce the winning ticket.
What new vector for fraud does this open up? If the people running the lottery
are corrupt, it wouldn't seem they need to use anonymous trusts to siphon off
money.

~~~
tabeth
I don't understand -- you already _are_ allowed to form an anonymous trust.
That's not the issue.

------
Waterluvian
My understanding is that the lotto wants free advertising at the cost of the
winners being made very public.

It seems like this individual is doing a tremendous public service by taking
this to court. I think most of us would balk at the risk of somehow losing the
millions of dollars.

~~~
Pharylon
The point of it is to avoid fraud.

~~~
make3
there are plenty of ways to avoid fraud without having to recall the identity
to the public, the main being state auditing of all lotteries, which should
probably happen anyways

~~~
dantillberg
I believe the issue with state's auditing their own lotteries is that it still
leaves a fair bit of room for public corruption. By declaring winners openly,
it avails anyone among the public to research potential corrupt connections
between lottery winners and lottery operators.

------
MrZongle2
On one hand, I can understand the winner's desire to stay anonymous -- it has
to be quite a magnet for every estranged relative and con-artist, not to
mention any anxiety that may arise in the future when dealing with immediate
family and friends when it comes to holidays, birthdays, and even a simple
meal out.

And, on top of that, the stress of simply _managing_ that amount of money so
you don't end up as another "they blew it all" story about lottery winners.

That said: _I wish I had her problem._

Most people probably would say the same. However, for a half-billion dollars
I'd just assume that managing both the money and the people you have to
interact with _was my new job._

And, at some point...things would have to improve. You change your phone
number. You change your address. You identify the moochers and the honest
friends. You've hired a lawyer and a financial planner. And, on top of all
that, you know that you and your loved ones won't want for food, shelter or
health care. _Ever._ And that you can use some of your fortune to make a
positive impact on your community, _as you see fit._

I hope she wins her case, but if she doesn't...I'd still trade places with her
in a hot minute.

------
zitterbewegung
I have a dissenting opinion to this and if you don't want to play by the rules
of a game then you shouldn't play. The whole point of the rule is so that the
State can advertise that someone won to make more participants in the lottery.

~~~
sp332
The rules explicitly allow her to accept the winnings anonymously, they only
claim that she went about it the wrong way - by following the steps they gave
her.

------
_trampeltier
I think it's a terrible thing to be fully named to the public. Some people say
here, it would be necessary, so people could trust the lottery. BS. The
winning could be faked also, so if you don't trust your lottery so don't play.
On the other side .. if you win such amount of money, you will lose all your
friends and family member anyway. Nobody can keep up with your new lifestyle.
So you have to go to far away anyway. Bad luck or so ..

Somebody remember this .. Improbably Frequent Lottery Winners
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15262440](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15262440)

------
gumby
There's an important reason to make these winners public: to prevent
corruption. Otherwise it would be easier to bad actors to direct lottery
"winnings" to their friends or as bribes (of course it can still happen:
[https://www.quora.com/Did-Whitey-Bulger-really-win-the-
lotte...](https://www.quora.com/Did-Whitey-Bulger-really-win-the-lottery))

This is the same reason why arrest records are public everywhere in the US:
secret arrests are dangerous.

Of course this default-public provides opportunity for other kinds of abuse as
well, but, at least in the lottery case, it's by definition opt in.

------
seanalltogether
I wonder if she can have her name legally changed prior to picking up the
ticket, and then changed back afterwards. I'm not sure if the signature on the
back matters in that case.

~~~
rapfaria
I suppose people would recognize her from pictures anyways. She wants to
protect her integrity and identity, not just the name.

------
keketi
Aren't court proceedings public record? Her name would come out that way even
if she wins. Can she grant another person the authority to sue on her behalf
and remain anonymous?

~~~
eesmith
The article points out "In court documents obtained by NewHampshire.com, the
plaintiff is fittingly identified only as Jane Doe."

See also [https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-
laws...](https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/filing-a-lawsuit-
anonymously.html) or use your search engine of choice for '"anonymous
plaintiff" lawsuit'.

------
logfromblammo
I think the operator of a lottery-style gambling game has an obligation to
publish its list of winners. It does _not_ have an obligation to say how much
they won.

This prevents the operator from simply saying someone has won and never paying
out. In theory, you could go around to everyone on the list and ask them if
they won a lottery prize. If anyone denies it, the operator might be pocketing
prize money.

It is clear from the available evidence that publishing the amount that
someone has won does harm to the winners. It becomes feedstock for a "people
to rob or defraud" list. The same principle is applied to the secret ballot,
wherein anyone can find out if you voted in an election or not, but they
cannot know whom you voted for unless you tell them yourself. You can, of
course, lie to them if you desire.

    
    
      Q: Ma'am, did you win the lottery this week?
      A: Yes.  My name is on the list, isn't it?
      Q: How much did you win?
      A: A dollar.
      Q: You didn't win the jackpot?
         That's a new car, isn't it?
      A: Of course not.
         I got a good deal on the financing, that's all.
      Q: And the 12-foot bronze statue of
         David Hasselhoff's Baywatch character?
      A: I found it at a dump.
      Q: Clearly, you also hired Peter Dinklage
         to dress up as Tyrion for your birthday party.
      A: That's just an enthusiastic cosplayer.
    

It's also difficult to enjoy being rich without making it glaringly obvious
that you have money, so I'm not seeing any pressing need for the judge to
anonymize this particular winner after the fact. It might be warranted for the
state to look into legislation that places greater weight on the financial
privacy of future winners.

------
Mankhool
Both her, and Shane Missler, who won the Mega Millions in January should just
disappear. I think her problem is that she wants her life to remain largely
the same. Well it can't and it won't. But a few hundred million dollars gives
you plenty of opportunities to start over, at any age, and take care of your
inner circle from wherever in the world you want to live.

~~~
msie
I wonder how some people here make it out to be a huge hardship for the
winner.

------
tompetry
I understand the desire to be anonymous, but things like this get out. While
taking this route might benefit future winners, it will likely make her own
situation worse via the "Streisand effect":
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

~~~
tclancy
The Streisand Effect would apply if her name was being bandied about because
she was trying to suppress the news. That's not the case.

~~~
user5994461
And sending a request to a couple of newpapers to have your full name redacted
will most likely just be done without further questioning.

------
jandrese
I'm surprised you can't set up a shell corporation to collect the winnings and
then pay you a monthly salary or something. Probably not proof against the
most sophisticated of account thieves, but it keeps your name out of the
papers. Is part of the law that the person who bought the ticket must be the
one to redeem it?

Or maybe just hire an accountant/lawyer to cash the ticket and transfer the
funds to her account? I mean she's got the money now.

~~~
wil421
Read the other comments on the thread. It’s possible to sign it as a trust as
they are legal entities. Also, she already signed so she can’t use the trust
option otherwise the ticket becomes nullified.

------
DoreenMichele
I think this is a good argument for restructuring the lottery. From what I
gather, the big jackpots used to be smaller and the small wins used to be more
frequent. They changed how it works because the larger the payouts of the big
jackpot, the more of a ticket buying frenzy you have.

Everyone actually wants to win. But not necessarily life changing amounts of
money of this magnitude. We should go back to more small wins and smaller
jackpots.

~~~
icebraining
The Spanish Christmas Lottery (El Gordo de Navidad) has a curious system:
rather than a different number per ticket, there are about 170 tickets with
each number (it varies each year), and so the first prize is divided by them,
which gives about 4M€ to each. But furthermore, each ticket is expensive
(200€), so they sell tenths of each ticket individually.

These tickets are also usually distributed sequentially, not randomly, so you
end up with cases like a single village this December in which 50 winning
tickets (=200M€) were sold to hundreds of persons (as tenths).

Of course, it must be painful to live in the area and not have bought a
ticket...

~~~
eesmith
There was a 99% Invisible piece about that lottery last year, at
[https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/el-
gordo/](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/el-gordo/) . It focused on the
town of Sodeto, where everyone won in 2011, except for one person.

------
AngeloAnolin
I will bookmark this, and hopefully someone updates the story of what happened
when the case has been settled.

On one side, you can see why the lady was asking for anonymity - exposing her
could really endanger her life. She would be a target for anyone, who would
want a piece of that $500 million dollars of reason. On the other side, you
see that the state wants to advertise and use this as a marketing ploy to
entice other people to play.

------
mc32
I wonder if she can temp change her legal name, receive the winnings and then
change back her legal name afterwards.

~~~
sharkweek
This reminds me of a very, very complicated episode of 'Nathan For You' (a
phenomenal show for those unfamiliar) - where he pays someone to legally
change their name to a celebrity's name in order to open up a fake bank
account with said name, then go into a restaurant and fake a "celebrity big
tip" scheme to bring the restaurant some needed PR.

But there's a snag! Nathan's lawyer lets him know he has to legally announce
the name change in a circulated newspaper. This might draw attention to his
scheme, right? So in order to get around that, he creates a fake newspaper,
and circulates it around a handful of major cities for four weeks to make the
name change announcement.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU1U2Eyep_4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU1U2Eyep_4)

------
edf13
Can't there be some way of trust/proxy setup to be used here? I'm available...

~~~
weaksauce
She already signed the ticket with her name on it. Altering it to be signed by
an anonymous trust would invalidate the ticket.

------
BrandoElFollito
Is this standard practice in the US (forcing people out anonymity when they
win at the lottery), or is this in this state only?

Here in France you have the choice (the lottery is not even encouraging you
that much to go public).

------
loorinm
Couldn’t she just set up a trust where she only gets a set income each year,
and has no access to the rest? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of being a
target for stealing/violence?

------
calvinbhai
Would it be possible to take the winnings non anonymously and immediately
donate 100% to a ‘charity/foundation’ (that funnels money back to her at
constant rate)?

~~~
gamblor956
Yes to the first part, no to the second as that would be tax evasion. She
could put it all into a grantor trust (an asset holding entity which is not a
charity or a foundation) which pays her an allowance at a constant rate.

~~~
IncRnd
Actually, the second part is very legal and is done all the time. In fact,
people who donate large sums to University and other charitable causes do just
that, receiving payments in return.

FYI, when politicians say they donated XYZ to their personal foundation or
trust, this is many times what has happened.

~~~
gamblor956
A charitable trust is not a charitable organization for tax purposes but can
receive deductible donations. It cannot send money back to donors. A
foundation generally is a charitable organization and can receive deductible
donations, and similarly cannot send money back to donors.

 _In fact, people who donate large sums to University and other charitable
causes do just that, receiving payments in return._

Citation needed. What you have described is not a donation, and would indeed
be a violation of the University's fiduciary responsibility with respect to
donations. The consequence is generally that the University would lose its
non-profit exemption. Most likely, you are conflating a contribution to a
family trust with a contribution to a charitable trust. Transfers to a family
trust can be revoked, and the trust can pay money back to its grantors or
trustees because it's not a charitable organization and does not have a
charitable purpose. A grant to a charitable trust is irrevocable, and cannot
go back to the donor.

~~~
IncRnd
That's a lot of words for, "I don't believe you." A citation is needed for
your assertion, please.

Here is a page at the University of Chicago that describes how that university
implements charitable gift annuities.

[https://campaign.uchicago.edu/join-the-
campaign/giving/plann...](https://campaign.uchicago.edu/join-the-
campaign/giving/planned-giving/life-income-gifts/charitable-gift-annuities/)

~~~
gamblor956
Charitable gift annuities don't have the result you describe. For starters,
they're only partially deductible, and you have to pay taxes on income earned
by the annuity. In effect, a lottery winner would pay taxes twice: first on
winning the income, and then when receiving money from the annuity (because a
partial charitable deduction wouldn't offset the annuity income and for a gift
in the millions would be capped anyway).

~~~
IncRnd
> _Charitable gift annuities don 't have the result you describe._

Really? They have exactly the results I described. In what way do they differ
from what I wrote?

Charitable Gift Annuities are not theoretical, despite you having gone from
protestations that Universities would go out of business for engaging in them,
to now saying that I wrote things I didn't.

P.S. A deferred annuity for a lottery is an entirely different product from a
charitable gift annuity.

------
blitzo
The lottery should provide 2 options:

\- Public + full money

\- Anonymous + half money

Win-win for both parties.

------
United857
She can likely afford some pretty good security with her winnings.

Her problem is not unique; any wealthy celebrity has had to deal with the same
after all.

~~~
vinceguidry
Security is extremely difficult to buy safely if you are an un-savvy
purchaser.

------
nodesocket
I never understood why they require you to release your name and picture.

I would attempt and wear a costume or mask to the announcement event if I won.

------
yuhong
There is a story on /r/teslamotors about winning a Tesla. I wonder if Tesla
itself knows who was the winner now.

------
m3kw9
Remaining anonymous goes a long way to help you keeping sane and your friends
and family intact

------
dawhizkid
I wonder what happened to the 20yo from Florida who won a few months ago

------
kingkawn
Take the money buy a new identity, wa la!

~~~
bonestamp2
She could. I think the point is that she likes her friends and wants to keep
them.

------
yohann305
What a great problem to have!

------
pmarreck
Giving the winnings in a cryptocurrency would both preserve anonymity
(pseudonymity?) and permit audit of the winnings.

~~~
jsymolon
Given all the issues in regards to exchanges i.e. fraud, theft and relative
difficulty in getting out, I wouldn't trust cryptocurrency at all.

~~~
pmarreck
What you don't realize are that your arguments here are actually anti-
noncryptocurrency.

Transactions done only in the cryptocurrency have no such disadvantages, at
all. Those are all issues with conversion to and from fiat, and thus arguments
against fiat.

At some point, maybe not with Bitcoin, maybe not with Ether, but at some
point, there will be a tipping point. Probably with the next country whose
fiat fails (venezuela?)

~~~
jsymolon
Not sure what to say to that other than the Kool-aid must be good.

Here's the thing, i want to be able to pay bills and be relatively insured
against losing to a con man.

Currency must be boring, reliable, trustworthy. Examples of the Wiemar
Republic Mark, Zimbabwe Dollar and other examples of hyper-inflation are
reasons why it must be consistent. Not 10,000 one day and 8,000 the next.
That's gambling.

Right now CC is a non-starter as i can't get my daily needs met using it. It's
a pyramid scheme full of shysters and people trying to get rich quick.

How do you vet that an exchange won't pull something ?

I want a boring finances. Yes there are issues with fiat but i can go, put a
dollar in, come back and still have a dollar. Not 0 and some excuse "hacked!".

[https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist/](https://www.scambitcoin.com/blacklist/)

------
brk
Given the size of the prize involved, it seems like she could have had a
duplicate "winning ticket" made, sans signature on the back. This would have
had to have been done before all the publicity about the signed ticket though.

Even with watermarks, etc., the cost to manufacture an exact replica ticket
couldn't be more than a few thousand dollars. Even if it were $100K to buy
some specialized equipment, it would still seem like a worthwhile investment.

~~~
IncRnd
Manufacturing a false winning ticket would be a sure route not to get paid.

~~~
cestith
More to the point, it would be an excellent way to earn about a dime per hour
the next dozen years or so, but with housing and food provided.

