You can think of the backstop funder as being a regular participant who happens to enter with the amount necessary to bring it to the promised pool size. This was basically the way we viewed it for the first lottery. The newer incarnations have shifted towards the view of the backstop funder as part of the infrastructure of the lottery. It’s not much of a meaningful change, just a expression of the likelihood that the funder will want to do something with the winnings other than fund the lottery the next time and some (ambiguously intentional) nomenclature shifts.
I was confused by this as well. Does “no winners” mean “the backstop funder won”? If not, how can there not be a winner?
Yes, that’s what it means.
You can think of the backstop funder as being a regular participant who happens to enter with the amount necessary to bring it to the promised pool size. This was basically the way we viewed it for the first lottery. The newer incarnations have shifted towards the view of the backstop funder as part of the infrastructure of the lottery. It’s not much of a meaningful change, just a expression of the likelihood that the funder will want to do something with the winnings other than fund the lottery the next time and some (ambiguously intentional) nomenclature shifts.
Wait I missed a chance to link to my favorite part of the lottery UI – check out this beautiful visualization: https://app.effectivealtruism.org/lotteries/63715163508812