[warbler]

I think the problem is that when someone tells you it's 100% no loss to you thats a guarantee. If one's money is guarenteed how can it not be paid back.

If the overwheling weight of opionon is that such guarentee's can be given out and then not honored(even if that's by means of a loop hole such as this staking-top-up-thingy) then that severly injures the value of any such guarentees.

Basicly I think that you should not tell people their money is 100% gaurenteed when it's not and in this case, playing at a high RiskOfRuin it was very f**king far from OK.

Even if the the whole staking top up thing is a legit loop hole (which I don't think it is) then the borrower should still pay back the money as he mislead (weather knowingly or through negligence[not explaining the conditional aspect of "100% no loss for you"])the lender who obviosly only agreed to it due the "100%" guarentee

And for what it's worth you should not lend out such sums to unknowns with too good to be true deals