On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:39 PM VJ Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > From rule 2166, "Assets" > > "An asset is an entity defined as such by a (a) rule, (b) authorized > regulation, (c) group of rules and/or authorized regulations (but if > such regulations modify a preexisting asset class defined by a rule or > another title of regulations, they must be authorized specifically to > do so by their parent rule), or (d) contract (hereafter its backing > document)" > > It is clear that a backing document is only a contract from the way > the rule is written. This was clearly just added in a non-careful way, > but textually, a contract is a backing document and nothing else is. > Therefore, there's no recordkeepor because "The recordkeepor of a > class of assets is the entity (if any) defined as such by, and bound > by, its backing document.". A rule of lower power defines the > Treasuror as the recordkeepor for shinies, but that must defer to this > higher power rule. > -- > From V.J. Rada
> Lovely, another missing comma. Can anyone think of a way out of this? It would totally break most of Rule 2166. -Aris
