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.

SNPtheCat said:
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.

Well the most professional approach would likely be a hybrid or a tiered system. For example, the agreement could specify that clear, provable physical infidelity (the "high" standard) triggers the full payout. Other, less provable forms of betrayal could be handled through a different mechanism, perhaps a mediated resolution or a partial dispersal of the funds.

Basically, the act of having this conversation and reaching an agreement on what constitutes a breach of trust is one of the plan's most valuable, albeit challenging, features.

SNPtheCat said:
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.

The core principle would have to be that the couple themselves, not the third party, would define what constitutes cheating. The third party would simply be the impartial administrator of those pre-established rules.