SNPtheCat said:
Interesting idea; how is that enforceable? If it's based on trust, may I remind you that at least one side has cheated on the other

It may not be a foolproof plan, but it can be structured in 2 ways.

-For legal reasons, couples who’re married or considering it, a clause could be included in a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement. For those who are not, a cohabitation or a simple contract could be drawn up. This would legally bind both parties to the terms of the fund and provide a clear process for enforcement.

-As a financial deterrent, if it’s beyond legal enforceability, the plan is designed to make the act of cheating have a significant, immediate financial cost. The purpose isn't just to provide a safety net; it's to create a powerful disincentive. While it’s true that someone willing to cheat has already broken trust, the prospect of forfeiting a significant amount of their own money could make them reconsider.

W0LFB3AT5 said:

-For legal reasons, couples who’re married or considering it, a clause could be included in a prenuptial or post-nuptial agreement. For those who are not, a cohabitation or a simple contract could be drawn up. This would legally bind both parties to the terms of the fund and provide a clear process for enforcement.

Let's say you leave the handling to a third party. How would one determine who is cheating, and what standard would one party have to reach in order to show that the other party has cheated? If you set the standard too high or too low, it either becomes ineffective or open to abuse, or both.