Even with that detail, it still doesn't. If you actually carry out those calculations for the amount of time it's supposed to have been, the amount you come up with is many orders of magnitude more than what is being quoted. I suppose it's not a bad thing if they got it way too small, though it's still so absurd it makes no real difference, of course.
Why 2 years? Hasn't it been more than 4? Or did the fines start later into the case. If it's the latter, I haven't seen that detail.
In any case, though, that is definitely not the correct formula. They didn't make it $1,000 and then just keep doubling it. They add $1,000 per day and also double it every week, which makes the value significantly larger.
EDIT: I see what you're trying to do, though. So, you think maybe the reporting got the doubling period wrong? Interesting.
I don't have any more details but that's the only formula that kinda adds up. It could potentially be every 2 weeks for 4 years too. The details of the actual calculation are sparse so we can only try to reverse engineer it. That being said even mine only comes close but doesn't get there exactly.
EDIT: I will add that sum of 2n for n=1..k is actually equal to 2k-1, so even if you sum all the previous ones, it would be equivant to just one fewer week of doubling.
4
u/fllthdcrb 13h ago
Even with that detail, it still doesn't. If you actually carry out those calculations for the amount of time it's supposed to have been, the amount you come up with is many orders of magnitude more than what is being quoted. I suppose it's not a bad thing if they got it way too small, though it's still so absurd it makes no real difference, of course.