My point is that profit as a concept exists because without it, there would be no reason to assume risk in the first place. Therefore, profit is compensation for risk.
The mentality that you seem to have is more like a moral justification, or excuse, for profit. "X took risks, and got rewards, and it is therefore good and right", to paraphrase. But there's no direct causation between taking a risk and getting a reward; in fact many rewards come from being well connected, having the right background, skin colour, social bearing and milieu, and many other structural advantages, and taking risks without these advantages leads to big fat losses.
Reducing the justification for profit to risk is a massive apology for the inequality in society which stems from far more than mere intolerance for risk. I don't think there's much difference in risk tolerance of young men right across the income distribution spectrum; you see it in boy racers, in the jousting on a Saturday night, in thrill seekers, in criminals, in all sorts. But only a few have the privileged position to be able to put significant capital at risk for reward, rather than their own bodies. Saying that it's justified that people profit from this, because of "risk", is just wrong, it's blinkered in a way which benefits the luckiest in our society.
That's not really how the entrepreneur thing is framed.
But isn't it a moral position then ?
Yes it is. The primary reason anyone takes on risk is because there is profit in it.
Risk is a limiting factor on chasing profit. The risk isn't the other side of a coin with profit. There are lots of different limiting factors on chasing profit; more supply may simply be unavailable, there may be barriers to entry, natural monopolies, regulation, etc. Risk (capital and human time) is one among many.