  In the collective-risk social dilemma, players lose their personal endowments
if contributions to the common pool are too small. This fact alone, however,
does not always deter selfish individuals from defecting. The temptations to
free-ride on the prosocial efforts of others are strong because we are
hardwired to maximize our own fitness regardless of the consequences this might
have for the public good. Here we show that the addition of risky assets to the
personal endowments, both of which are lost if the collective target is not
reached, can contribute to solving the collective-risk social dilemma. In
infinite well-mixed populations risky assets introduce new stable and unstable
mixed steady states, whereby the stable mixed steady state converges to full
cooperation as either the risk of collective failure or the amount of risky
assets increases. Similarly, in finite well-mixed populations the introduction
of risky assets enforces configurations where cooperative behavior thrives. In
structured populations cooperation is promoted as well, but the distribution of
assets amongst the groups is crucial. Surprisingly, we find that the completely
rational allocation of assets only to the most successful groups is not
optimal, and this regardless of whether the risk of collective failure is high
or low. Instead, in low-risk situations bounded rational allocation of assets
works best, while in high-risk situations the simplest uniform distribution of
assets among all the groups is optimal. These results indicate that prosocial
behavior depends sensitively on the potential losses individuals are likely to
endure if they fail to cooperate.
