This is because as the maker of the deal they want you to have "skin in the game" to protect their investment into the deal.

This will give you what is known as skin in the game- and make you into it actually investor - with something to invest. 

For what it's worth, I don't think you should expect your GC to put skin in the game. 

It has come to my realization as I put up all of the money I have worked so hard for, that he has no skin in the game.

Three months of being under contract and having the deal fall apart due to you not producing any qualified buyers will get under any seller's skin. 

Again, other might feel differently here.b) Skin in the game: as a conservative investor, I understand that the dirty secret of industries that the waterfall compensation is in the line with me and incentivizes sponsors to take more risk.

There’s numbers on a piece of paper that put seller financing in a great light.And then there’s the reality of seller financing being a bet on the buyer managing and maintaining a property well for years or decades while you still have skin in the game.And a bet that the value doesn’t decline by more than the balance of the debt.And a bet that the higher “price” received because of seller financing doesn’t come with opportunity cost in the form of being able to spend or invest the liquidity day 1.And the fact that buyers with seller financing always want better terms than a bank would give them, which is real economics that sellers are far less equipped than banks to estimate risk/reward on.Seller financing is relatively rare.

The seller has an opinion and so do appraisers, but no other skin in the game.

The tenant is a deadbeat lying useless waste of skin.

If a contractor has skin in the game, obviously he will go above and beyond to ensure the project is profitable for himself and the investor.