On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 3 Jul 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: >> What if you had the ability to optionally avoid the forced sale and >> instead be subject to criminal penalty? Would this be reasonable to >> you? > > At this point, I'm realizing that I'm not comfortable being in a contract > with this kind of economic character where (1) leaving the contract is limited > in many circumstances and (2) the contract change mechanism is majority vote > instead of without X objections. It's too easy to give substantial economic > power to 51% of the group. You're making what should be "power-2 or above" > level changes with a majority vote. > > That aside, I'd be comfortable with forced offering rates (must make X offers > per N proposals at a fixed rate P when you're under water) but not ones where > the buyer dictates absoliutely and automatically which proposal it happens > for. > > I'd also suggest lowering the definition of "under water" to 40 for minimum > (required to raise above within N days) but still 50 for being allowed to > quit. > This way you get a few "freebies" (a few things you can buy without having > to switch into sell mode). Right now I think offers are so cheap because > people are being forced to switch to sell mode too much (or trying to > protect against it). > I think these are reasonable suggestions. I'll re-publish my changes.
BobTHJ
