On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 4:08 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 09/02/17 17:37, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > I think we could upgrade Agencies to that they can hold Shinies themselves. > With that plus proper Powers, they could operate extremely similarly to how > I believe Organizations are intended to. (And even WITHOUT that, they still > can, although with a bit less safety because its not as stalwart as "brutha > choo cant do it, its da LAW" and more like "you get a card if you break this > rule we made...". Just make an abstract wallet of shinies as a subsection of > some player's existing wallet) > > > In general I'm supportive of making some combo of agencies and > organizations, but there's some problems with this proposed method. Keeping > shinies in a single player's possession defeats all the merits of an escrow > scheme: they can spend them without any issue (unless we add punishments, > which I think is the wrong direction), they can change the agency without > others' input (orgs typcially require member approval), and if they > deregister the shinies are gone. The whole point of using an org as a > middleman is that, if the org is structured correctly, there's no way to > cheat people out of the assets it holds.
Personally, I'd favor merging agencies into orgs, getting rid of budgets, adding a general SHALL against willfully/negligently defying the text of the entity, and then calling the whole thing a contract. We can put a new (or possibly old) officer, the Notary, in charge of the whole business. The one major prerequisite to all of this is some type of judicial reform, but absent objections we could just keep the current system for now, and improve it later? I'm starting to think the absence of contracts is one of the causes of the slow economy. -Aris
