Also doesn't capture in the the unequalness of gains. Which is better - the fed doing something that has 90% chance of huge gains or a 10% chance of catastrophic economy shattering loss? Or an 80% chance of huge gains and a 20% chance of gains netting 0? The first is much more desirable if maximizing a bonus and could be tempting - but I dont think we want that risk.
Politician + lots of money = golden toilet?
In other words, money works for building a competence hierarchy in business. It doesn't for politics.
What you want is a competence hierarchy in politics. It needs its own separate currency that can only purchase political decisions.
Because it doesn't have that, money is used and that creates a business-in-politics aka corruption problem.
ps. Has this been tried anywhere? This is an idea I thought of on the fly and have not looked into or thought through.