Quote:
Originally Posted by OsTornado
BTW, it doesn't sound like he "stole" money, assuming he played within the parameters of the agreement, etc., but he definitely broke the agreement and has acted kind of stupid about the whole incident.
OST I completely disagree. Was explaining to a fellow non-marketplace mod as to why this is basically stealing, here's part:
The backer in turn theoretically gets screwed out of whatever the EV of the remaining 1,400 stakes had. He rode out the downswing faithfully at a considerable personal cost and is entitled to whatever comes on the upswing if there is one, or at least reducing his losses via makeup, but he's been robbed of that.
The stakee here just decided--less than 1/3 of the way through the stake-- that he would not honor the difficult side of the agreement. This is something unblem paid for and is entitled to under the stake terms. The makeup function of staking agreements is intended to marginalize downswings like this for the backer whose funds are invested; the stakee isn't supposed to make money when the stake is in the red, and anything won in that phase is applied to the stake bankroll.
However Deisel feels that instead of playing through, he'll just leave unblem on the hook for his losses and keep future any profits for himself, profits which unblem is entitled to. Those profits over what would have been the remainder of the stake should be going toward the $2.7k in makeup first, and beyond that the backer would get his split. This is the problem.