Janet wrote:
On 9/21/25 15:23, Edward Murphy via agora-business wrote:
Proposal: Streamlined fees
(AI = 3)
Amend Rule 2579 (Fee-based Actions) by replacing this text:
To use a fee-based method, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise
permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing
the action; the announcement must specify the correct set of
assets for the fee and indicate intent to pay that fee for the
sole purpose of using that method to perform that action.
with this text:
To use a fee-based method, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise
permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing
the action; such an announcement indicates intent to pay that fee
for the sole purpose of using that method to perform that action,
and e SHALL specify the correct set of assets for that fee, though
simplified wording such as "I buy X" is sufficient if the fee paid
is reasonably unambiguous.
[This month, there were half a dozen announcements like "I buy X" or "I
plant X" where there was no ambiguity what was intended. This proposal
may open up some obscure loopholes, but that still seems preferable to
repeatedly tripping over wording that seems like it ought to work.]
Is it deliberate that this goes from the attempt failing if an incorrect
set of assets is specified to the attempt silently succeeding and also
being a crime? That seems like a very odd result.
Maybe it should be downgraded to SHOULD, but also state that if the fee
is specified incorrectly then the action is ineffective.
In any event, the looser should also include a clarity requirement.
"reasonably unambiguous" was intended as such a requirement, do you have
something different in mind?
--
[ANSC H:GE]
