Given that the standard argument for diversification is to avoid risk, an argument based on a model which assumes no risk isn’t going to be convincing. You need a model which does assume risk, and actually show that the risk makes no difference, rather than assuming it out at the beginning.
Diversification makes sense in a preservation context, where any asset you have could devalue by a near-arbitrary factor—and then it only matters because the utility of going near 0 assets is really really negative, so you try to steer around that by not letting one catastrophe sink you.
When handing out goodies, there is no such extreme penalty for it ending up worthless. It would be bad, but since it’s only linearly bad, that’s taken into account fully by taking the expected return.
Given that the standard argument for diversification is to avoid risk, an argument based on a model which assumes no risk isn’t going to be convincing. You need a model which does assume risk, and actually show that the risk makes no difference, rather than assuming it out at the beginning.
Diversification makes sense in a preservation context, where any asset you have could devalue by a near-arbitrary factor—and then it only matters because the utility of going near 0 assets is really really negative, so you try to steer around that by not letting one catastrophe sink you.
When handing out goodies, there is no such extreme penalty for it ending up worthless. It would be bad, but since it’s only linearly bad, that’s taken into account fully by taking the expected return.