Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by nstj 2117 days ago
Full Tilt Poker didn't operate like a bank from what you described as they "had slowly siphoned off almost all player funds over the course of multiple years, leaving only a small fraction in reserve".

In this case they were like a _Ponzi Scheme_ and not like a fractional reserve bank as they had _no assets_ to redeem the claims of their depositors with.

Pokerstars (from what you've described) was operating in a manner similar to a fractional reserve bank.

1 comments

Pokerstars was not operating like a fractional reserve bank, because it had segregated player funds to separate bank accounts. As in, it didn't have a "fraction" of reserves for the money players saw in their accounts, it had "full" reserves. It didn't have to go out and sell illiquid assets in order to pay players. It already had the money at hand.

If you want to characterize Full Tilt Poker's operation as a ponzi scheme, I have no problem with that. Full Tilt Poker was operating as a fractional reserve bank, and in addition to this it was siphoning assets of the bank to its owners.