I tend to agree with your co-founders on this one. I am not sure that the behavior of past Manifold users in a play-money economy where the only cash-out was to charity is a reliable guide to how future users will react to in a ~real-money environment.   When we're talking about play money potentially redeemable for charitable donations, that is one thing, especially where the vast majority was ~freely obtained (as opposed to being purchased with cash. If people can't donate play money they were largely given for free, that doesn't keep me up at night too much. It's something different where the quasi-cash was largely purchased with real cash (or obtained in wagers of quasi-cash that was largely purchased with real cash). In the latter case, I think you have to be prepared for the risk of a bank run.   Maybe, but conditioned on there being a run on the bank, Manifold equity would not provide a solid backstop for customer claims. If you are in a bankrun situation, there is a pretty decent possibility that Manifold equity is either illiquid or ~worthless. You might be hard-pressed to find buyers either because of the underlying facts that led to the bankrun or due to skepticism about the value of a business whose customers are in a panicked rush for the door.  Moreover, the base rate of young startup failure is pretty high, so there could be a number of scenarios in which a run makes sense. If I thought Manifold might be going under soon, and my quasi-cash was backed only to a limited extent, I think I'd rather exchange my quasi-cash for real cash ASAP.  Perhaps you could get an irrevocable line of credit for the next ~2 years backed by a certain amount of equity? If you can, then that could back the quasi-cash liabilities. If you can't, is evidence that you can't get a sophisticated lender to accept the equity as collateral also evidence that Manifold users shouldn't accept it as backing?  I guess another way of saying this is that I think Manifold should tre