On Fri, 21 Aug 2009, Roger Hicks wrote: > On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 00:04, Roger Hicks<pidge...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 21:41, comex<com...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Proto-Denied. It seemed reasonably clear to me since the IBA is the >> only active bank. Other opinions? >> > Bank transactions are difficult in this regard (we ran into this > problem to some extent during the hey-days of the RBOA and PBA). They > use an action mechanism defined in the Bank's contract, but transfer > an asset defined in a different contract (or the rules). So, who has > the final say as to the success state of a transaction? The > recordkeepor of the bank (since the action in question is defined > there)? or the recordkeepor of the asset (since their report of > holdings is what is ratified)? In my opinion it should be the latter, > but it does seem to be a tough call.
If the asset's backing document says an asset action CAN happen, it CAN happen (subject to rules restrictions above that). The bank can neither add a CAN nor impose a CANNOT, unless the backing document explicitly delegates such powers to the bank. The bank can impose SHALL and SHALL NOTs, and can also create a subclass of CANS by creating act-on-behalfs between members. I think! -G.
