CoV on 8138: AGAINST Gaelan
> On Nov 27, 2018, at 6:35 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Ørjan Johansen wrote: >> On Sun, 25 Nov 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >>>> 8138 twg 2.5 Access to contracts' assets > > I vote AGAINST 8138 and act on behalf of pokes to vote AGAINST 8138. > > >> There seems to be no methods as required by rule 2125. > > I think "as permitted by a contract's text" may defer the method > specification to the contract (i.e. "by contract" is the specified > rules method, provided the contract says explicitly how to perform > the task). > > However, this makes me realize what made me nervous: if that works, > the method specified in the contract could be private, which would > result in the contract being able to transfer currencies secretly > (not informing the recordkeepor) if the deference works. And if the > deference doesn't work, it's all broken anyway as Ørjan says. > >
