60k "Staking" dispute

[aislephive]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i wanted to withhold opinion initially as the timeline of the transfers was ill defined from the initial post, but from the aim convos above it seems pretty clear that the initial 30k loan was converted into stake money along with the additional 30 that was subsequently sent, and that if Boosted blew through all of that and OP wants his money back he needs to stake more until the aforementioned makeup is complete - ie. its 100% no lose assuming OP doesnt cut Boosted off, in which case he eats the loss. Assuming the stakes played were agreed to and stuck to I really dont get what all the drama is about...

[/ QUOTE ]


even if that is true, which it clearly isn't

[ QUOTE ]
him: stake me and <u>I'll provide</u> makeup if I lose
him: that way it's 100% no loss for you


[/ QUOTE ]

what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???

NOWHERE, booosted says he'll provide the makeup not OP therefore boosted owes OP 60k period. btw booosted you are complete scum.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is all assumed under the term "makeup."

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. NOTHING is assumed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't be naive.

"what does the bolded part say about the makeup? Where does it say OP has to continue staking him???"

The term makeup means OP must continue to stake him if he wants his money back if they lost the initial $60k. Of course that's assumed because that's exactly what the term "makeup" implies.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is absolutely clear is that the first 30K was a loan.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keyword, WAS.