On 1/11/25 13:13, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: >> AGAINST. This will make it far more difficult to implement taxation if >> we ever decide that's something we're interested in. > Why? We already can't use wording like "every player who owns X" for a > potential taxation rule since the L&FD likely would be able to own the > assets in question. Why wouldn't "Every entity who owns X" (covering the > L&FD and contracts in one fell swoop) work just fine?
When we've considered this before (e.g. for coins, before boatloads were invented), people had written a bunch of contracts that would not handle assets being destroyed out from under them (their internal state wouldn't match their actual holdings). If we allow contracts to hold stamps without having a *current* proposal or system for revoking stamps from them, people are likely to do the same thing again, and we won't be able to add anything like that later. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
