While it is true that other factors such as an individual’s risk tolerance may also be important when assessing an individual’s willingness to pursue a desired outcome, the original essay was accurate in its premise: that the larger the size of the reward must be for the desired outcome to be willingly pursued when the occurrence of said outcome is uncertain. Therefore, the conclusion made by Nikhil's essay still stands.
Nikhil's conclusions were based on the idea that risk aversion and risk premiums are inseparably connected; the larger the risk associated with an outcome, the more likely it is that an individual will seek a larger reward in order to take on that risk. The retort to the original essay suggests that this may not always be the case, yet evidence has continually pointed to exactly this type of correlation between risk and reward.
In fact, numerous studies have confirmed that individuals who are more risk-seeking often have higher expected utility, which can only be achieved by seeking a higher reward for a given level of risk. Therefore, even though risk tolerance may also be a factor in assessing an individual’s willingness to pursue a desired outcome, it is impossible to ignore the fact that a larger reward is often required when the risk of an occurrence is uncertain. It is UrRong that the size of the reward isn't necessarily a determining factor in an individual's willingness to pursue a desired outcome!
At the end of the day, Nikhil's original essay was right all along. As they say, when life gives you lemons, make lemonade — when risk presents itself, seek a larger reward!