Why "everyone pays everyone back" wastes transfers
If five friends each try to settle up individually for every item they covered for each other, the number of possible payments grows combinatorially, up to 10 separate transfers for five people. Netting everyone's balance first and only paying the remaining differences collapses most of those transfers into redundant, cancel-out-able noise.
Why n-1 transfers is always enough
Once balances are netted, the group has a fixed total amount owed that exactly matches the total amount due, split across however many people have a nonzero balance. Repeatedly clearing the largest debtor against the largest creditor guarantees at least one person's balance hits exactly zero on every transfer, which is why the process can never take more than one transfer per remaining person.
Frequently Asked Questions
What if the total doesn't divide evenly among everyone?
Small rounding differences, usually a few cents, are common when dividing an odd total. Most people either round to the nearest currency unit per person or assign the leftover cents to whoever paid the original bill, since the amounts involved are too small to matter.
Does the order of matching change who ends up paying whom?
The total number of transfers stays minimal either way, but the specific pairings can differ depending on the matching order used. The net amount each person pays or receives overall stays exactly the same regardless of which valid pairing is chosen.