On 1/11/25 1:15 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
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.
Then that's on the drafters of any contracts that don't consider the possibility and don't have a way to be amended. Even without taxation, there's no guarantee that scams or just ordinary bugs in the rules won't cause a contract to possess a different set of assets than it thinks it does. I imagine administrative errors plus ratification (self or otherwise) could create that situation too.
I also don't see why we need a system in place now to specifically revoke stamps from contracts. Wouldn't the hypothetical taxation rule provide that? "The taxor can impose a tax by announcement; upon doing, for each type of stamp, each entity loses X stamps of that type, where X is equal to half of the number (rounded up) of stamps of that type it owned immediately prior to the imposition of the tax." (Yes, horrible wording, but it shows the idea.)
-- Mischief Collector, Illuminator, Prime Minister Hat: steampunk hat Vitality: alive Bang holdings: 2
