Well in that case it's similarly broken in the current rule as well, albeit only for actions on behalf, not for currency transfers. No?
-twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, November 27, 2018 2:35 PM, 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.
