I am being staked on two sites. Get 1k on each site and after this one of the site blocks one of the accounts and never gives us the money back. On a 50-50 deal, staker says that it should be added as MU on my other account and explains that we both lost 50-50 of that buy in. But it feels very wrong to me. Feels like I take full responsibility for that. What do you guys think ?

"Get 1k on each site and after this one of the site blocks one of the accounts and never gives us the money back."


Why did you get banned?

I am not in this situation, a firend is and he got banned after winning a torunament and was accused of collusion. But the site isn't providing any proof of it.

It's more of a hypotetical question. Lets say you start a new deal 50-50.In a case where this happens, lets assume site exit scams all their users. What happens next ? Who and to which % should each party suffer consequences

There is no right or wrong answer really unless such a scenario is built into the original staking agreement.

But if I was an independent arbitrator I would probably make a judgement along the lines of the two parties' (backer and player) net worth relative to each other being used as a guide of what percentage of the loss each of them should pay. Then once arriving at the % split, add 10% on to the player's number because the player who was entrusted with the money was the one who lost it, be it through negligence, carelessness, poor judgement, cheating the site, or whatever.

So I guess in many cases the figures would look something like, backer is 4 times more wealthy than the player. So an 80/20 split of liability, adjusted up by 10% on the player = Backer receives 30% of the losses from the player, $300 in the case of your friend.

That’s a pretty ridiculous way to arbitrate this issue.

What if the backer is over 100x as wealthy as the guy getting staked? More importantly, how does someone’s net worth have anything to do with responsibility for the debt? It doesn’t.

OP, it’d be helpful if we knew more about how the account came to be banned. If your friend was cheating—without the knowledge of the backer—then I think he should pay the money back outright, forget make up.

If the account was banned for no reason, or if your friend was doing something shady and the backer knew about it, then a 50/50 split seems fair, so add $500 to MU.

Assuming the backer chose the site, then I think they should eat the loss. In the event of a club exit scam or other such situation where the money is lost because of the site closing or closing their account, the horse should forfeit any profits they had in that account, but the principle itself (deposit(s)) shouldn't count towards makeup. After all, the backer could have chosen a more reputable site, where these things don't happen. If the horse were given broad discretion about which site to play on, and they chose that site, then it should count towards makeup (and any profits are simply evaporated).


Obviously this is all assuming no wrong doing on the part of the horse. If they account was closed because the horse multiaccounted without the backer's knowledge, then any deposit funds lost would be subject to makeup (although not any share of the profits accrued in the account, assuming they were in the black).

I gave this as how I would arbitrate it because the OP gave no info on why the account was banned. Without any further information it seems to me that neither party is to blame, and in those circumstances I think it would be fair for each party to pay a percentage based on the affordability to them.

The 10% added on to the player's liability means that even if the backer is 100 x wealthier the player still pays $100.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

I mean if the player's net worth is $5K and the backer's is $500K, a $100 to $900 split will hurt them ~equally.

If the two staking deals were pre-determined to be linked to each other, i.e. that a loss of the full stake on one automatically gets added as make up to the other, then that is different and there is a case to add $500 make up to the other one, or possibly even the full $1000. But the OP didn't say that this was the case. It appears that they are two separate staking deals, even if they are both from the same backer.

First off there's a lot wrong with this. Let's say you and I are 50/50 partners in a business. We get sued for 50K or some random unseen expense. You're worth 1M and I'm worth 100K. So for us to pay an equal share of our net worth it would be 4.5454% - you should pay $45454.54 of this while I just pay $4545.45? I will get to realize 50% of profits along with you but only have to pay a small % of costs? That's wildly unfair.

As for what actually happened - trust is paramount and why the account got banned is the most important topic as it's not a common occurrence - accounts aren't banned lightly.