No. Actions on behalf between persons are governed by R2466, which says
explicitly that the actor CAN use the same method the principal CAN. So
if the Rules say that Person A CAN transfer a currency "by announcement"
(which is covered in the Assets rules), and that Person B CAN act on
behalf of Person A (covered by act-on-behalf and current Contract rules),
then Person B CAN also do it "by announcement".
But that only works between persons, not between person and contract.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> 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.
>
>
>
