I get "chasing your dream" - but I struggle to believe an idea he came up with for a school science fair at the age of 14 was any kind of lifelong dream.
I get "chasing your dream" - but I struggle to believe an idea he came up with for a school science fair at the age of 14 was any kind of lifelong dream.
If he has his needs met, what does it mean to him to have his needs met more? I know logically this can be worked out that lots of money buys lots of comfort, but thinking back at that age, I personally didn’t know squat about the value of a dollar. I grew up with less money than most of my peers (not “food insecure poor”, but “all I got for Christmas was cloths and 1 small toy poor”) but never thought about it. I just thought my parents were careful spenders.
However, to your point; where were the adults in the equation?
I would be shocked if he had any concept at all. Most adults have no concept of what it means to have that kind of money which is why most lottery winners are broke within 5 years of winning the lottery. You literally can live an upper middle-class/lower upper-class lifestyle without working another day in your life off that interest alone.
Finally, a money market fund at 0.5% has an annual yield pretty close to what I make working 40 hours/week. And in my opinion, we live pretty well on what I make in an expensive city like Seattle.
All that, of course, assumes that one does not lapse into lottery winner syndrome because one doesn't have a concept of how much money $30 million is, therefore views it as a bottomless pit of cash, and blows it all on velvet Elvis paintings, bad business ideas from your cousin, and "helping" out your meth-head sister.
All of that assuming assumes the $30 million dollar offer is real. And I'm convinced a vending machine idea is worth a couple of orders of magnitude less than what is claimed.
Life proceeds normally
The child learns a lot from the experience of raising money for this invention, along the way gathering all sorts of experiences that are valuable in the working world.
The child (Well, parents until $age-of-majority) get 30$m with which to improve the child's life.
Either of the secondary options are useful. You're viewing the value of money and survival as the primary goal. The child could already be set for life with that depending on the earning of the parents and their pensions, etc. Either of the two latter options provide unknown gains and losses to the child, depending on what you value more.
Note that this excludes negotiating a better bid with another company.