1: \begin{abstract}

2: In the collective-risk social dilemma, players lose their personal

3: endowments if contributions to the common pool are too small. This

4: fact alone, however, does not always deter selfish individuals from

5: defecting. The temptations to free-ride on the prosocial efforts of

6: others are strong because we are hardwired to maximize our own

7: fitness regardless of the consequences this might have for the

8: public good. Here we show that the addition of risky assets to the

9: personal endowments, both of which are lost if the collective target

10: is not reached, can contribute to solving the collective-risk social

11: dilemma. In infinite well-mixed populations risky assets introduce

12: new stable and unstable mixed steady states, whereby the stable

13: mixed steady state converges to full cooperation as either the risk

14: of collective failure or the amount of risky assets increases.

15: Similarly, in finite well-mixed populations the introduction of

16: risky assets enforces configurations where cooperative behavior

17: thrives. In structured populations cooperation is promoted as well,

18: but the distribution of assets amongst the groups is crucial.

19: Surprisingly, we find that the completely rational allocation of

20: assets only to the most successful groups is not optimal, and this

21: regardless of whether the risk of collective failure is high or low.

22: Instead, in low-risk situations bounded rational allocation of

23: assets works best, while in high-risk situations the simplest

24: uniform distribution of assets among all the groups is optimal.

25: These results indicate that prosocial behavior depends sensitively

26: on the potential losses individuals are likely to endure if they

27: fail to cooperate.

28: \end{abstract}

29: