On 9/24/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 5) Each kopeck has exactly one color. Each color of kopeck is a > currency. Ownership of kopecks is restricted to members. The > Bankor is the recordkeepor of kopecks. > > 6) As soon as possible after a member requests credit, the Bankor > SHALL create in eir possession, for each color of VC in eir > possession, maximum(100*X-Y,0) kopecks of that color, where X is > the number of VCs of that color in eir possession, and Y is the > number of kopecks of that color already in eir possession. The > member SHOULD include the results of these calculations in eir > request. > > 7) As soon as possible after a member (hereafter the transferor) > transfers 100*N kopecks (where N is a positive integer) of the same > color to another member (hereafter the transferee) for the sole > purpose of creating a VC debt from the transferee to the transferor: > > a) If the transferee CAN spend VCs to create N VCs of that color > in the transferor's possession, then e SHALL do so. > > b) Otherwise, e SHALL transfer 100*N kopecks of that color to the > transferor for the sole purpose of canceling the VC debt.
The reason I left the agreement is that this seems pretty screwy to me. Suppose Member A and myself each have 2 red VCs. We each join the credit union and request credit, and we each get 200 red kopecks. Now suppose Member A transfers 100 red kopecks to me, and in response I spend two red VCs to create a red VC in Member A's possession. Now I have 300 red kopecks and 0 red VCs, and Member A has 100 red kopecks and 3 red VCs. Member A then requests credit and gains 200 red kopecks, so e now has 300 red kopecks and 3 red VCs. We still have equal credit, but now Member A has 3 VCs and I have none, whereas our holdings were initially equal. It seems strange that a member can get credit on the basis of eir VCs, transfer away the kopecks e receives, and then get more credit on the basis of the same VCs. Additionally, a member could join the credit union, receive credit for eir VCs, subsequently spend all eir VCs, and still have the credit to request more VCs from other members without the means of satisfying any VC obligations emself. There's also a race condition tied up in this. If I join the credit union with 2 VCs and request 200 kopecks of credit, and Member A transfers 100 kopecks to me before I receive my credit, then I will receive only 100 additional kopecks from the Bankor and end up with 200 kopecks and no VCs. If I receive my credit before anyone transfers kopecks to me, however, then I get my full credit and end up with 300 kopecks and no VCs. Suppose the following system instead: Whenever a new member joins for the first time, e receives credit for the VCs e had at that time. Whenever a former member joins, e receives credit for the credit e had when e left, adjusted for any VC gains or losses in the intervening period. Whenever a member gains or loses VCs and the gain or loss is not a result of a credit union obligation, e gains or loses the corresponding amount of credit. Whenever a member spends 2N VCs to cause another member to gain N VCs as a result to satisfy a credit union obligation, e gains 100N kopecks to offset the fact that e only received 100N kopecks from the other member in compensation for eir 2N VCs, and to replace the VC that thereby leaves the credit system. I think that the only flaws remaining in this proposed credit union are the race condition, which must be settled via timing clauses, and the inevitable upward spiral and devaluation of imaginary credit as VCs leave the system, which I don't know how to solve. -root
