Invest in education!

I had this idea from poker:

A rich guy who may or may not be good at poker may 'stake' a good player who is lacking his own money to play with. Usually the arrangement is that the stakee plays with the money and the staker gets 50% of profits (and incurs all the risk). The stakee is incentivized because they can also make money and they are relieved of the mental overhead of worrying about losing all their own money. Win-win!

Could we do the same for education?

Suppose I am wealthy and wanted to invest in a way that directly benefits our future. I could give my money as stake "grants" to students who would otherwise be taking out student loans and, regardless of their prospects after, be forced to pay all those back (and even bankruptcy won't wipe student loans!). Putting the risk onto the student could be a barrier to entry for many (I really don't know these details off-hand, but it feels true) and have a set amount they need to pay back could negate whatever income they start to get. With a grant+comission system, I could take on the risk instead. The student would be free from the pressures of immediate payments and could better find the job/direction/entrepreneurship they really want to do. I just wait until they start making money, and depending on the terms of the grant get some cut. Naturally my return should be higher than for a standard loan, but it could really be a win-win. We both do better if they perform. Because the grant would be incentivized for both the staker and stakee, the stakers could make more money available for high-productivity fields. Conventional loans would still be in place for other fields.

Civil suits in Europe vs USA

I learned a fun fact recently: in Europe, if the plaintiff in a civil suit loses their case, they are required to pay the defendant's legal fees. In America, there is no such obligation. This leads to an ease of filing frivolous lawsuits in America.

I heard about one such case where someone sued, completely illegitimately, for damages of $1M. They knew they would probably lose in court, but they also projected that the defendant would have to spend over $1M to get that verdict. As such, it's cheaper for the defense to just settle with a no-fault clause or similar. Essentially, lawsuits are an opportunistic business. The case went to trial, but after years and over $1M in fees, it was settled because there was just no end in sight.

In Europe, this scenario would have lead to the complete ruin of the plaintiff. The European model discourages (or even prevents?) frivolous suits because there's an additional consequence of losing. Isn't this a great system?

Turns out it has the same exact problem (or at least I think it does), in reverse: it would significantly discourage 50/50 lawsuits because the plaintiff fears they could be on the hook. It also discourages a small entity from suing a big one because the defense fees for the big guy could completely cripple the smaller. I have no idea if there's more nuance here, but both systems run into opposite ends of the same issue spectrum.

Is there a better way? Could the judge just rule "ok come on, that was a frivolous case" vs "yeah, you had reason to believe you might really win"? Is that too arbitrary? We don't want to put barriers (especially financial ones) in the way of small entities seeking justice, but we also have to rein in frivolity. Where's the line?