Well, the fact that they're implausible pretty much means the cash rewards are going to have to wait until they are plausible. But don't we think clear thinking is its own reward?

I've found that such things are incredibly crucial for getting people to think clearly about personal identity. In fact I don't know if I have any way of explaining or defending my views on personal identity to the philosophically untrained without implausible hypotheticals. Same goes for understanding skepticism, causality, maybe induction, problems with causal decision theory (obviously), anthropics, simulation...

I'm all about being aware that using implausible hypotheticals can generate error but I am bewildered by the sudden resistance to them on this thread: we use them all the time here!