Apparently a lot of people are too busy saying "I told you so" (we will make sure to pat your imaginary avatar on the back) to understand the gravity of a company releasing a statement like this.
In business, the following statement is very common: Company X (a general contractor) has sub-contracted to a large group of sub-contractors. All the sub-contractors provide work for company X, who then receives the money from its clients and pays the sub-contractors. Then one day, company X sends out letters to all the sub-contractors saying "Well, we are sorry, due to our financial situation we are unable to compensate all of the sub-contractors for the work that you have done, so in an effort to settle with you and keep our company in business, we are offering to settle all outstanding unpaid work orders for 30% of the original amount"
In this example, the sub-contractors who are owed 1 million USD will lose 700k. But a sub-contractor owed 50K will only lose 35k. Sub-contrators must either accept the Company X's new rules, or Company X will be "forced to file Bankruptcy". Ok, end of that example.
Fast forward to todays post. Misconception about personal loot pools has stirred something up over in Sweden. When people keep depositing thinking our personal avatars are due for "big one" (whether it was a good decision or not is irrelevant), they were doing so under the assumption that they would get paid something back (just like the sub-contractors in the above example) This assumption was premised on a lack of clarity on MA's part and perhaps stupidity on our part. In an effort to cover their ass, and make sure they don't look like they were intentionally letting the Personal Loot Theory exist and propagate itself, they are now uniformly denying it. By making this statement, they are saying "No matter how much you lost, from now on, everyone has an equal chance in the future to get back X percentage of money you deposit, BUT, to all the people already down 20-50 or 100k USD, you are unfortunately not due anything" This is just like the letter in the above example. Any sub-contractor who did a lot of work for Company X, or any player who lost a LOT of money in this game, are all equally wiped away in either scenario.
The end result is, the sub-contractors in the above example were screwed, and Company X changed its business plan and was able to continue like nothing happened. The people who have deposited big into this game are screwed, and now MA can implement whatever new business plan or agenda it has.
I am NOT complaining...I made a choice to do business with MA, just like the sub-contractors chose to do business with Company X. But when I see company X make statements like that, I get worried, and when I see MA make a statement like this, and attempt to wipe the slate clean regarding people who have lost a LOT, I get worried too. There is a reason this statement was made, and trust me, it ain't cuz we were wondering, and they felt like clearing up our confused little minds. There is a BIGGER reason, be it legal, or personal, that motivated them and THAT is what makes me worry. Quite simply, it seems they want to WALK AWAY with any money that has already been lost to them and start on a new track with a new loot model. Those of us with personal avatars that LOST 40K or even 100K are as likely to get back 40k-100k as any equally skilled avatar who has only deposited 1k has a chance of making that same amount. (which is great from a marketing perspective: "you all have an exactly equal chance to get good stuff or make money")
Bottom line, there was two COMPLETELY different sides to loot theory that they allowed us to think existed, and now there is only one. What made them do it?