On 1/11/25 13:41, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > 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.
Sure, that's fair. All I can say is that it seemed like people were unwilling to break contracts in the past. > 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.) I'm not saying we should add one now; I'm saying that, inevitably, contract drafters will not consider the possibility if the threat is not already hanging over their heads. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor
