A Gen Z Lottery Winner Turned Down Millions for Weekly Cash and People Are Calling Her Crazy
When most people imagine winning the lottery, the assumption is obvious. You take the lump sum, quit your job, and move on with your life. That’s why a recent decision by a 20-year-old lottery winner from Quebec immediately set off alarms online. Instead of accepting a $1 million payout, she chose to receive $1,000 a week for life. Within hours, the reaction turned sharp, loud, and deeply divided.
Her name is Brenda Aubin-Vega, and her choice has become a flashpoint for a much bigger argument about money, risk, age, and how people define financial intelligence.
The Decision That Sparked The Backlash
Aubin-Vega won the top prize on a Gagnant à Vie scratch ticket through Loto-Québec. The rules were simple. Winners could either take a one-time $1 million payment or choose $1,000 every week for life. No restrictions were forcing one option over the other.
She selected the weekly payout. That adds up to $52,000 per year. Over 20 years, it crosses $1 million. Over the course of 30 years, it reaches $1.56 million. The payments are backed by the province of Quebec, and lottery winnings in Canada are not taxed.
From a reliability standpoint, it’s a guaranteed income stream that doesn’t depend on markets, employers, or investment performance. For many observers, that explanation wasn’t enough.
Why Critics Say She Gave Up Generational Wealth
Image via Wikimedia Commons/Web Summit
Most of the backlash focuses on what she gave up by walking away from the lump sum. Critics argue that a million dollars at 20 carries a rare advantage as it provides the perfect opportunity to grow.
That viewpoint gained more attention when Changpeng Zhao, founder of Binance, weighed in publicly. He described the decision as throwing away “generational wealth,” suggesting that a lump sum invested early could have produced far greater long-term returns.
Online commenters echoed the same concern. They pointed to inflation eroding the value of $1,000 a week over time, the lost compounding effect of investing early, and the idea that structured payments limit flexibility. To them, the math makes the choice look short-sighted.
Others Think The Weekly Payout Makes Sense
Despite the backlash, a large group of people defended the decision. Their reasoning focused less on maximizing returns and more on managing reality.
At 20 years old, a sudden seven-figure windfall can disappear quickly. People shared personal stories about lottery winners who paid off debt, helped family, spent freely, and ran out of money within a few years. The stress followed long after the cash was gone.
A fixed weekly payout creates boundaries. You can’t spend everything at once. You don’t need to build a financial team overnight. You avoid becoming an immediate target for requests, loans, or pressure from others. The money shows up consistently, without requiring constant decisions.
There’s also a psychological benefit. Knowing that income arrives every week removes financial panic. Housing, food, and basic expenses become less of a daily concern. For some people, that stability matters more than chasing long-term upside.
The Gen Z Perspective Behind The Choice
Part of the reaction reflects a generational divide. Older audiences tend to frame the situation in terms of investment growth and missed opportunities. Younger voices are more likely to focus on housing costs, job instability, and how fragile financial security feels early in adulthood.
For many in Gen Z, guaranteed income represents control. An extra $4,000 per month can support education, allow career flexibility, or make buying a modest home realistic. It provides breathing room without creating a lifestyle that’s impossible to sustain.
Several defenders also pointed out that a steady income doesn’t eliminate ambition. It simply lowers the risk of financial collapse while someone builds their future.
People Remain Divided
Image via Getty Images/FotografiaBasica
This story hasn’t gone viral because there’s a clear right answer. It’s stuck around because it forces people to confront their own priorities.
Some see money as a tool to be optimized at all costs. Others see it as a source of stability that should reduce stress, not increase it. Aubin-Vega hasn’t publicly detailed her reasoning beyond brief comments about stability and housing goals, and she doesn’t need to. The outrage reflects how strongly people project their own fears and values onto financial decisions.
Calling the choice “crazy” makes for attention-grabbing commentary. But for a 20-year-old who now knows her bills are covered every week, for life, the decision may feel less reckless than many assume.