Quote:
Originally Posted by auralex14
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.
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.
Last edited by Mikey_D; 04-11-2020 at 07:56 PM.