On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 17:12, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote: >>> d. Key Power: *Any* shareholder (member or non member) may act >>> on behalf of the corporation with the support of [shareholders >>> adding up to a majority] Corporations CANNOT and SHALL NOT >>> forbid non-members from so acting or supporting said actions. >>> Shareholders are encouraged to use corps for their own benefit >>> (i.e. the AFO). >> >> Given this, I'd encourage allowing 0-party contracts and encouraging >> corporations to be contracts of this sort. > > Well, if they're 0-party contracts, we're basically making them player > entities with tradable controls, and there's no reason to make them > contracts at all, we could just make a new type of entity. > > I was thinking myself that requiring members offers a double-dynamic > of allowing the members of the corporations somewhat responsible to > shareholders; e.g. contracts that are more likely to add value to the > game would have a stronger share price (benefiting the members that > start with a controlling stake). But maybe this is dreaming and we > should just make some straight-out zombies. What do you think?
Corporations contracts would be a natural place to put the default (and presumably lower overhead) means of acting on behalf of the corporation. It would also be a natural place to specify dividends (as something any shareholder can act-on-behalf to distribute), if such were desired. It is an interesting question what other knobs about corporations might want to be tweaked. Which reminds me, one needs to consider how to deal with a corporation owning its own shares. -woggle
