On Sat, 14 Oct 2017 at 22:28 Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Regulations are not dangerous, certainly not "very dangerous". > Regulations only work at the power of their parent rule, and can only > do what their parent rule says they can do. This is the first of > several safeguards against their misuse. Admittedly, an over broad > parent rule could do a lot of harm. However, we see no signs that they > are likely to be used dangerously. Currently, all they do is to run > the tournament, which isn't particularly dangerous. My contracts > proposal would let them be used to throttle some contract actions > within eminently reasonable bounds, and to exempt contracts from > paying taxes, which isn't particularly dangerous either. The most > dangerous thing they've been seriously suggested for is banking, such > that they could used, within bounds, to control Agora's treasury. That > needs more caution, but the proposal would have limits and would be > promulgated by a three member commission, hopefully ensuring broad > support. There was that it was suggested that they be used for chevron > deference, but that proposal was quickly shouted down as overly broad > and was never a serious proposal anyway, as confessed by the author. > Second, regulations require agoran consent to adopt by default, > ensuring that they can't be passed without public agreement. Third, > proposals can always change regulations anyway, so people can get rid > of them if they don't like them. I think there are sufficient > safeguards in place to ensure that regulations are used safely. If you > wish to suggest additional safeguards, I'm fairly likely to support > them. However, I see no need to repeal an interesting system that will > make for interesting gameplay. > > -Aris > I'm not the slightest bit convinced that they can't be abused, but I will refrain from discussing why because if Agora is set on keeping them, no point in revealing potential scams. I'm pretty sure there are loopholes that could let me do silly things with them, and because they are powered, they are very, very dangerous. If a loophole is found in a regulation, for instance, then it can amend any rules of equal or lower power. This is what makes them fundamentally different from the other rules-defined documents that we have. The problem is not, inherently, with delegating rules power away from the rules to other instruments; it's the manner in which it is done. And I don't think there is enough compelling reason to want to do so (especially with contracts likely to be available again soon) to sink a bunch of energy into fix proposals. Apart from that, they also have an overcomplicated recordkeeping system. That's a minor beef though and easily cleaned up. For the Notary's contract things that you proposed, it's easy enough to regulate those with various switches or other tools. Regulations are only one way to do it.
