On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Olipro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > So, here's some ideas I've been bouncing around in my head; > > 1) a Rule declaring the RBoA to be a legal entity and as such, becomes > responsible for the value of the Chit, whilst at the same time, the Chit > will formally become legal tender for settlement of all debts public and > private.
I rather prefer the current decentralization of the economy, which lets us experiment with multiple models at once. If players want to use Chits as legal tender, they can. Players who have no interest in the economy can just ignore it. I don't see a reason that any of this needs to be in the rules rather than a simple revision of the RBoA. > 2) the value of the chit will be backed against the assets held by the bank; > if assets are exchangable at the bank, then the value of the Chit against > those assets will be calculated accordingly and rise and fall depending on > whether the bank gains or loses assets. Isn't this what the bank already does? > 3) Fractional Reserve; Chits deposited with the bank will receive interest > on a weekly/monthly basis and hence permit the issue of loans as well - > interest payable and receivable depends on the interest rate set by the Bank > and should be reviewed on a regular basis to regulate economy growth. I like this idea, but I would want some indication that players would actually make use of Bank loans on a regular basis. Interest that does not generate value is just inflation. > 4) The bank will be free to judge the creditworthiness of any borrowers and > restrict individual lending accordingly; the Bank is entitled to require the > individuals in limited partnerships to guarantee any credit issued to the > partnership. What do you mean by "limited partnerships"? > 6) Undischarged bankruptcy - after bankruptcy proceedings complete, the > bankrupted individual must declare eir bankruptcy status in the pursuance of > any credit whether in a public or private manner. - this must also be > declared in the proceedings of a Limited Partnership registration and > overseers of the registration may refuse the individual on these grounds - > similarly individuals responsible for the failure of a LP must also declare > this prior failing and may be refused registration of such status in future > for a maximum period of time. Why deny registration to bankrupted partnerships? Wouldn't it be sufficient just to deny them further loans? -root
