> 5. This contract defines a position called SEC member, when a player joins > this contract if there are fewer than five SEC member e becomes a SEC > member.
I don't like this part. I'd definitely prefer a system where *everyone* has a say rather than it being a race to become an SEC member. <snip> > 14. A company may be formed by 3 members of this contract with SEC support > by announcing eir intent to do so along with a company name, and a stock > symbol which is not claimed by another company. When a company is formed the > SEC President CAN and SHALL remove from each member's who formed the company > possession a number of SMDs equal to the number of SMDs in eir possession > multiplied by 0.5. E shall then create in each of eir possession a number of > <symbol> stocks such that the total number of <symbol> stocks is 100 and no > player who formed the company owns two more than any other player who formed > the company (e.g. 33 + 33 + 34 = 100 and 33 = 33, and 34 - 33 = 1 so all > conditions would be met). The players who formed the company are designated > Director of <symbol>. Why not say it more simply and just state, "The SEC President SHALL remove from each founder's possession half of eir SMDs." Also, I don't particularly like this part; instead, there should be some other benefit for putting up more money, like increased initial stock value. I also don't see why it must be that you need exactly three people to form a company, despite this "board of directors" stuff. It would, IMO, be better if a single person or a group of any number of people could form a company and then decide their own organizational structure for it, rather than dictating this stuff through the contract. In fact, it seems to me like a partnership or other type of contract should be able to become a company by announcement. Really, I don't see the point of any of this except that: 1) You have to invest money to start a company, and 2) You get 100 shares of this company divided evenly (rounding as little as possible) among the founders. Instead, the *company* (a contract, like I suggested) should receive 100 shares and be able to divide them as it pleases. I do like the idea of a stock exchange, but it needs some work. Really, I prefer leaving organization to the companies themselves (through contracts) and then having this only manage the investment part. A member to this contract should be able to invest and receive shares through this contract, but requiring a board of directors for a company seems like it's going too far. I think you should rewrite this contract specifying that a company is a partnership specifying that it is so (though it also would be nice to have companies run by only one person, so think about that as well) and only handle the investment part of it through this contract. Hopefully that would work out nicely. avpx
