On Mon, 2014-10-27 at 09:57 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > That's a great idea (I'm assuming you mean basically "pay to keep your > contracts in play for whatever we define is in play?"). This can > have a double trading as you could trade Contracts entire as well > as whatever currencies are used to pay for them. Is this what you're > thinking?
Pretty close to that. You'd definitely want a creation fee, and possibly a maintenance fee as well. Perhaps the better way to do effective maintenance fees would be to have contract creation fees scale with the number of contract-analogues you're maintaining; this reduces recordkeepor burden, and gives players incentives to get rid of old contract-analogues to create new ones, rather than having to scramble at the end of each month or whatever. I'm currently unclear on whether the charge should be for the contract-analogue itself, or for membership in it. -- ais523
