Goethe wrote: > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: >> 2248: FALSE >> >> The pledge cannot refer to outside-of-Agora dollars, which fail to >> meet Rule 2166's "existing solely because its backing document defines >> its existence" requirement. Thus, they define a class of entities with >> the same name as the outside-of-Agora class (which Rule 586 allows). > > I intend to call for appeal with 2 support. There is no reason that a > pledge or contract can't refer to non-Agoran items, whether or not they > are "assets" as defined in the Rules. The above judgement implies that > if I make a clear and directpledge "I pledge to send a dollar to root, > and by that I mean a real, United States dollar" that it wouldn't work, > but the rules don't support or prevent that.
No, it only implies that a contract lacking specification refers to Agoran items when reasonable.
