Look, I get it, I was starting out once, and out of necessity did some "high risk" work where we invested a lot of time before getting paid. Sometimes it worked out, sometimes it failed.

I learned to understand that -risk- has a value. All transactions have risk, maybe I don't deliver, maybe you don't pay.

I now explicitly factor risk into quotes. We can share risk (you pay some, but not all, up front, coupled with progress payments), or I can take the risk (I'm pricing it higher, and assuming you're skipping the last payment), or you can take the risk (pay up front, but pay less.)

Treating risk as a line-item in the budget helps both parties understand the pricing better. Having a track record (of paying or producing) helps the other party accept more if the risk.

I've had some clients prove to be unreliable payers. For them I accept no risk. All work us done on a "pay first" basis. Some choose to find another supplier. I don't consider that a loss.

If you keep working, you still run the risk of never getting paid — in which case your lost investment would be more time and money than it would've been if you'd stopped after the first unpaid bill.

State governments do this too. NY under Cuomo just dictated a 10% cut to invoiced labor. It was widely understood that saying no meant no more work in the future.

Wrong notion.

Eff, what kind of sucker [1] are you?

"You" (not you) already took a risk which failed. Now you are talking about taking on more risk with the same person who cheated you, like a lallu (Hindi term for a sucker)?

You're promoting wrong ideas, which are harmful to everyone here who is a supplier.

You need a principle from Econ 101:

  Don't throw good money after bad. 

Animats is right.