Imagine winning the lottery and facing a delightful dilemma: a guaranteed million dollars today or a steady thousand dollars every week for the rest of your life. That was the enviable choice presented to Brenda Aubin-Vega, a 20-year-old from Montreal, and her decision has ignited a coast-to-coast conversation about money, risk, and lifestyle.
The Winning Moment and a Fateful Choice
In July of last year, during a work break, Aubin-Vega purchased two scratch tickets at a corner store in Montreal's Saint-Laurent borough. To her astonishment, three piggy bank symbols appeared, indicating she had won the top prize from Loto-Quebec's Gagnant à vie (win for life) game. "I couldn't believe my eyes," she told CTV News, recounting how she checked the ticket repeatedly before calling her father and taking the rest of the day off.
The prize structure offered two paths: the advertised $1,000 a week for life, or a lesser-known lump-sum alternative of $1 million. After her moment of shock, Aubin-Vega made her choice. She opted for the weekly installments, famously posing with a novelty oversized cheque for $1,000, leaving the immediate $999,000 difference on the table.
Expert Analysis: The Math Behind the Millions
The story gained renewed attention in December when Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance and frequently cited as Canada's richest man, commented on the social media platform X. He argued she would have been better off taking the million to invest, suggesting even modest crypto investments could yield far more over time. "Assume she lives 100 more years, she gets $5m (no inflation). Today: BTC $90k, BNB $865. Let’s see," he posted.
We asked Jeffery S. Rosenthal, a professor of statistics at the University of Toronto, for a professional perspective. He explained the calculation isn't straightforward. Based on a female life expectancy of over 80, the total payout could exceed $3.12 million if she lives another 60 years. However, inflation would erode the value of each weekly payment, and the "time value of money" is a critical factor.
"There’s an obvious answer but then there could be twists," Rosenthal told the National Post. "For one thing you could invest it, and hopefully your investments would make more money." He illustrated that a $1 million lump sum invested at a 6% annual return could grow to nearly $33 million in 60 years, though that assumes none of the principal is ever spent.
The Psychology of Payouts and Public Reaction
Beyond the spreadsheets, Rosenthal highlights crucial psychological and lifestyle elements. "Some people might be thrilled to suddenly have a million dollars. You can go on incredible trips and buy incredible things," he said, contrasting it with the slow-and-steady security of a weekly stipend that doesn't enable an immediate, dramatic life change.
Public reaction, particularly on social media, largely sided with the lump-sum choice. Many commentators pointed out that a young person could responsibly invest the million to generate passive income exceeding $1,000 per week, while also building a massive long-term nest egg and hedging against inflation. Others, however, noted the behavioral benefit of the weekly option: it prevents a sudden windfall from being spent too quickly and provides a predictable, lifelong income floor.
The story of the young Montreal winner serves as a fascinating national case study in financial literacy. It pits the allure of guaranteed, perpetual security against the powerful potential of compound investment growth, proving that even the happiest of problems requires careful thought.
