Hi, I am a user of your site, I registered here with the sole purpose of contesting the statement hereby
https://news.stake.com/us-election-2020-statement/ As soon as I've read the e-mail I've contacted the support but they didn't give me clear information or excuses then I saw that shortly after Stake changed the statement thanks to the contribution of users here, I am happy to see Stake taking action but I also see that some remarks have been ignored by Stake.
From what I've seen so far, an early payout to Biden bettors has been disbursed despite the current result is projected by the media and not certified by State authorities.
The bet in question cites "next President" and the Law in question "12th Amendment" has a precise process of execution that does not leave space to interpretation, I will not paste it here but you can check it and see what is the process for electing the US President, it can be electoral college votes but not limited to that, so please read it all.
I see that some issues raised by previous users were addressed but the rule
2. "Biden has to concede" is unilateral and hasn't been applied on all betting parties
Also, the US Constitution lays out the full election process which comprehends the eventuality in which the President can be democratically voted in by the States in the occurrence of obstruction by the House or other contentious relationships between the House and the winner of the electoral college.
So, I find quite alarming that Stake is imposing arbitrarily and unilaterally, these rules only on Trump bettors while those who have received early payout, received it solely on the basis of a media projection and on no legal basis, whether this is noble from a customer care policy, Stake does not have the authority of not complying with for example the Supreme Court which is likely to either invalidate the votes (upon proven fraud) or invalidate the whole election on the basis of the same.
Another point is that upon checking what legit providers are doing (Betfair, Paddy Power, William Hill, etc) have all put on hold the bet and their statements clearly indicate that they will abide to the regulatory decision made by US Authorities rather than interpreting the result, I ask Stake to clarify this because I am quite alarmed as this results ambiguous not to say deceptive and gives too much liability on Trump bettors which have seen their betting conditions changing on the way and additional non regulatory nor statutory conditions such as Biden concession and else, have been arbitrarily put by Stake. Also, I find the "coup" mention quite odd given that a coup would be illegal so not needed to mention. I think Stake should structure a legal team before making rushing to such decisions that result in the penalization of a part of the userbase.
I therefore kindly ask Stake representatives to clarify this and possibily fix it upon seeing the clear problems with their statement, problems from a regulatory standpoint because what Stake should do is comply to the authorities ruling accordingly to electoral law (12th Amendment) I am a Law graduate from University of Turin and I can provide my credentials to admin in case. If such request remains unaddressed I woud have to start a petition, send a formal notice of complaint to Stake and upon unfair ruling proceed with the actual complaint. I hope Stake did not add these requirements with the purpose of adding frictions to this process, and I'd ask Stake to refer to the law and the law only. Similarly to Betfair or other providers, of which I share the statement here:
https://betting.betfair.com/politics/us-politics/us-election-betfair-market-settlement-scenarios-021120-51.htmlWhile I may understand the reason why Stake decided to add those rules in order to have a procedure, I strongly advise Stake to abide by the official ruling when it will be clear. The process is laid out in the US Constitution and the President is sworn in so there's no space left for interpretation. The bet was clearly "Next US President"
If the President is actually sworn in by the States, it means that States votes cannot be counted in all the bets aside from "Next President" therefore those bets should be refunded in that case because there is no determined winner. If the electoral college is enough, the bets shall be graded.
In any case, whether is via the electoral college or via US supreme court ruling, if Trump is democratically elected with a process contemplated in the US Constitution the bets should be graded. I don't understand why Stake complicates this with the current Statement while they could've adopted something way more simpler like Betfair did.
I hope this helps, I am quite concerned and I want the best for the future of Stake but if they really want to be industry leaders in crypto gambling they need to have institutional behavior and follow the guidelines laid by industry leaders in the gambling industry which are all currently on hold, or if they have made pre payment they're not imposing these draconian and absurd rules on the other part of bettors which do not have any fault and could potentially be the legitimate winners accordingly to the law, the pre payout is a remarkable act but I want to remind Stake that there are not A class bettors and B class bettors, all deserve the same fairness, especially when it comes to this scenario where some have been paid out based on projections.
If the market was frozen it would have been easier to settle because regardless if it's electoral college or Supreme Court, the winner would have been paid, so now this cannot change. Interpreting the election based on discreationary and non regulatory rules is dangerous and not recognizing for example, a Supreme Court ruling, would be very unwise by Stake doing this because both cases are contemplated in the electoral process, Stake doesn't have the authority to overrule this or add discretionary conditions, especially after a part of bettors has been already paid based on unsigned, uncertified estimates. This has not to be taken lightly at all.
Considering also the effort I am putting in this, I ask Stake to address this promptly and find an adequate solution for the piece of mind of all bettors and in order to not incur in unwanted disputes. I think Stake should follow the regulation, if they made these rules to avoid a coup they should know that a coup would be illegal and a Supreme Court ruling for States vote is not as the same as Trump unwilling to leave the White House, because the first is contemplated in the US Constituition, the second isn't.
Please Stake fix your Statement because atm it doesn't looks like is written by Legal professionals, which is concerning given the amounts at "stake".
From what I see, there has been a lack of oversight on Biden side disregarding Trump side which has been imposed with additional and non legally substantial requirements to determine the winner. Please address this because it's quite important and I've seen others making similar remarks that are unaddressed, this is "a bit" alarming because it would seem that Stake is discharging its own liability on a part of the userbase in order to provide benefits (without the judicial needs to do so) to the other part of the users.
I have nothing against biden pre payment but I think that should be fair for all and I think that if this pre payment had not taken place, these rules would not have been imposed at all and Stake would have ruled based on the legal effects of the election rather than outlining a discretionary interpretation. Please do your legal due diligence and fix this. While it may sound complicated, Stake could easily provide a fair arbitration by ensuring to abide by the official ruling when there's more clarity, maybe making some examples for the different cases (states vote and electoral college vote) I think everyone here wants a fair outcome and the official rulings cannot be interpreted if those rulings are part of the US election rules. While I recognize it may not be easy for Stake I would also like to say that Stake should be more precise when it comes to this and no single gambling provider considered as trustworthy has shared an ambiguous statement like the one I saw from Stake. These providers are saying that are basically abiding to the law when there's more clarity and when the authorities decide, it should be this simple. I gave some examples, but Stake current statement is still far from fair and I expect clarification because we're talking about trust here.
