> On Feb 26, 2026, at 12:20 PM, ais523 via agora-business < [email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, 2026-02-26 at 11:51 -0500, Gregory Hayes via agora-business > wrote: >> I call for judgment on the following statement: "Galle CAN transfer a >> Contratoken to the Contradictory Contract." I submit the text of the >> Contradictory Contract as evidence, and the following as arguments: > > The caller might want to analyse the text in rules 2576 and 2577 and > present their own interpretations about what they mean in this > situation. In particular, the word "specify" in rule 2576 looks > relevant – if a contract contains two contradictory specifications, do > they both succeed in specifying, or both fail to specify, or > collectively cause the specification status to become paradoxical?
I've given this issue some thought already. In fact, I suspect that the way Rule 2576 is phrased, there actually may be no contradiction in who can OWN Contratokens. Rule 2576 says that the backing document may specify which entities CAN own an asset, but never says that they may specify which entities CANNOT. So it's an entirely reasonable interpretation that one clause specifies that I can own Contratokens, and the other clause specifies that both I and the Contradictory Contract can own them, and Rule 2576 doesn't care what else the first clause says. However, this is why I included the clauses about transfers. Rule 2577 says a backing can "modify" which entities assets can be transferred to, which I believe is most naturally interpreted as unlimited authority to both enable and block transfers. - Galle
