On Sun, 2022-04-10 at 14:44 -0700, Edward Murphy via agora-discussion wrote: > (These both need specific values of N filled in) > > Proto: Inclusivity > (AI = N) > > Create a rule "Inclusivity" with power N and this text: > > A requirement that something be "reasonable" or "reasonably > <adjective>", or pertaining to the availability or clarity of > information, implies "to players in general", unless otherwise > specified.
This could plausibly be part of rule 217, rather than a new rule? (There are some downsides to having too many single-purpose rules, both in terms of making the ruleset intimidating to new players, and in terms of constructing the Device.) > Proto: Limited power of attorney > (AI = 2.5) > > Amend Rule 2618 (Promises) by replacing this text: > > A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise, > > with this text: > > A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise by > paying a fee of N, > > Amend Rule 1742 (Contracts) by replacing this text: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract. > > with this text: > > * Act on behalf of another party to the contract by paying a fee > of N. I fear that this would make Promises almost useless. At present, they're the lowest-friction way to do Rules-enforced trades, but if you start charging a fee, people will use contracts instead (and do each half of the trade in its own message). (The original idea of Promises was as a sort of "create your own currency that's actually backed by something" – originally, they didn't even have cashing conditions – but that usage never caught on. This change would prevent that usage from working, too, effectively leaving Promises without a home.) One possible exception would be if the asset paid to cash a Promise (or otherwise act on behalf) is something which can't be spent on anything else and is lost if not used (sort-of like how ergs used to work), so that it acts more like a rate limit than a cost. -- ais523
