[replied to list, since I don't see a reason not to talk in public..] On Sat, Jun 24, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@googlemail.com> wrote: > For each Stock, Holdings of that Stock is a player switch whose > value is a nonnegative integer, default 0. For each Stock, > Total Holdings of that Stock is a the sum of all individual > player switches defined above. Total Holdings of that Stock may > not exceed the Max Holdings of that Stock. Any action that would > cause Total Holdings of that Stock to exceed the Max Holding of > that Stock is ineffective. Max Holdings is a stock switch whose > value is a nonnegative integer, default 50. Max Holdings can be > increased or decreased by announcement by any player whose > Holdings switch for that stock is greater than 50% of the Max > Holdings switch for that stock. Max Holdings can also be > increased or decreased by any player by putting forth a Stock > Proposal, which may only modify the Max Holding of a Stock > and may be pended for free by an player holding at least one > instance of the stock to which the Stock Proposal relates. On > the Agoran Decision to determine the adoption of this Stock > Proposal, the Voting Strength of each player shall be equal > to their Holdings switch for that stock.
Interesting. But is limiting maximum holdings actually necessary? I suppose it makes this a more realistic simulation of a stock market, and it provides potential incentives to trade stocks for more than the Market Price… But neither is it realistic for the number of available stocks to suddenly increase while keeping the value of each stock the same (as opposed to a stock split, which decreases the value). In any case, the proposal stuff would have to be Power-3 to take precedence over the normal definition of Voting Strength.
