> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
> document),
and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence.
So no organization can define and issue assets, for example?
> If an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class of
entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred to an entity
outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside
that class (except for Agora, in which case any player CAN transfer or
destroy it without objection).
How is this different from "An asset's backing document may forbid its
ownership from a class of entities, but it CANNOT forbid Agora from owning
that asset. Any action done which would result in an entity gaining an
asset which it is forbidden to own is IMPOSSIBLE. If an asset is owned by
an entity which is forbidden from owning that asset, the asset is
destroyed. If Agora owns an asset, any player CAN transfer or destroy it
without objection" (adopting this phrasing may require rewording some later
parts so that they still work, but for the purpose of this question, that
is irrelevant).
PS: I think the default should be that an asset is transferable only via a
mechanism specified in the backing document. I probably would support a
rule which gives the record-keeper of assets to destroy abandoned
Agora-owned assets without objection.
> An organization's charter CAN specify whether or not that organization is
willing receive assets or a class of assets. Generally, an organization
CANNOT be given assets its charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
This seems ambiguous. A charter which says nothing about assets neither
specifies if it is willing or unwilling to receive them, so would not fall
under either sentence.
Say if a hypothetical organization says something like "At the beginning of
each Agoran month, this organization distributes as many of its Shinies
evenly to each member, with the organization holding the remainder," but
doesn't explicitly say that it can receive Shinies, where does it stand?
Does this change if the backing document is a rule with higher power than
the one for organizations?
> [The] entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class and
their owners.
Do you perhaps mean all extant or existent instances of that class, or we
can't have a theoretically unbounded asset class? (Example: "A floorb is an
asset with a name switch which is valid with any string. Any player who has
never previously made a floorb may create a new floorb and set its name
switch" might be impossible to record.)
> A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing document, and CANNOT
be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
Is this for ease of access in terms of terminology?
> Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance", without any currency modifiers,
[...]
I think you need a comma "ambiguity".
I finally managed to have time to look at this proposal. Seems good so far;
I would like to hear your thoughts about my remarks / concerns.
天火狐
On 24 May 2017 at 00:01, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I'm quite skeptical of this. I've put a lot of time into the current
> Assets proposal, and feel like "Defin[ing] Assets very simply" would
> have significant disadvantages in several respects. I think I'd have
> trouble convincing people to implement another system once we have one
> up and running, despite the possible advantages. I do agree about the
> lost and found department though. If someone writes new text for "you
> can't take it with you" that fits with assets, I'd be more than happy
> to include it (with appropriate credit of course).
>
> Here's my current draft of Assets v4:
>
> {{Title: Assets v4
> Adoption index: 3.0
> Author: Aris
> Co-authors: o, nichdel
>
> Reenact rule 2166, Assets (Power = 2), with the following text:
>
> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule (hereafter its backing
> document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its
> existence.
>
> Each asset has exactly one owner. If an asset would otherwise
> lack an owner, it is owned by the Agora. If
> an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
> of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
> to an entity outside that class, and is destroyed if it is owned
> by an entity outside that class (except for Agora,
> in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it
> without objection).
>
> Unless modified by an assets backing document, ownership of an asset is
> restricted to Agora, persons, and organizations. An organization's
> charter
> CAN specify whether or not that organization is willing receive assets
> or a
> class of assets. Generally, an organization CANNOT be given assets its
> charter states that it is unwilling to receive.
>
> The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
> defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document. That
> entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
> and their owners. This portion of that entity's report is
> self-ratifying.
>
> An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
> announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
> To "lose" an asset is to have it destroyed from one's
> possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to destroy it
> from that entity's possession.
>
> An asset generally CAN be transferred (syn. payed) by its owner to
> another
> entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
> document. A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
> document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.
>
> A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
> document. Instances of a currency with the same owner are
> fungible.
>
> The "x balance of an entity", where x is a currency, is the number of x
> that
> entity possesses. If a rule or proposal attempts to increase or decrease
> the
> balance of an entity without specifying a source or destination, then the
> currency is created or destroyed. Where it resolves ambiguity "Balance",
> without any currency modifiers, refers to an entity's balance of
> whichever
> currency is designated as "Agora's official currency", if there is one.
>
> Assets are always public. [To provide for private contract based assets
> later]
>
> Change the rule "Economics" to read in full:
>
> Shinies (sg. shiny) are a liquid currency, and the official currency of
> Agora.
> They may be owned by Agora, any player, or any organization. The
> Secretary is
> the recordkeepor for Shinies.
>
> The Secretary CAN cause Agora to pay any player or organization by
> announcement if doing so is specified by a rule.
>
> Shinies cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
> addressing the destruction of Shinies. Any attempt to destroy Shinies
> instead
> transfers them to Agora.
>
> Amend Rule 2459, Organizations, by adding as a paragraph at the end:
>
> A member of an Organization can perform any action the rules authorize
> that
> Organization to perform, if the Organization's charter states that doing
> so
> is Appropriate.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, all shinies existing under the old system
> continue
> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
> shinies
> are created to replace them.
>
>
> Amend the rule "The Surveyor" to have the folowing text:
>
> The Surveyor is an office, and the recordkeepor of estates.
>
> Amend the rule "Estates" to have the following text:
>
> An Estate is a type of liquid asset, which can be owned by players,
> orginizations, and Agora. The following changes are secured:
> creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an
> entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate.
>
> Estates cannot be destroyed, except as allowed by rules specifically
> addressing the destruction of Estates. Any attempt to destroy an
> Estate instead
> transfers it to Agora.
>
> Amend the rule "Estate Auctions" by changing the paragraph beginning
> "During
> an auction..." to read "During an auction, any player or organization may
> bid
> any number of Shinies by announcement." and removing the break between that
> and the next paragraph.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, all Estates existing under the old system
> continue
> to so under the new system, and if they would not otherwise do so, new
> Estates
> are created to replace them.}}
>
> -Aris
>
> On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:39 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Looking back at Assets v3 and forward to current events, I think we
> should:
> >
> > -Define Assets very simply, distinguishing fungible and nonfungible
> >
> > -Replace balance with a more generic asset switch (which applies to
> > organizations, agora, and *persons*)
> >
> > -Redefine trade and heirs to work for all assets. I did a quick take on
> this
> > below [1].
> >
> > -Make assets go to Agora or heirs as appropriate, skipping the concept
> of a
> > Lost and Found (which I feel was the most problematic part of Assets v3)
> >
> > [1] {
> >
> > "Agora, *a person*, or an organization (Payer) can 'pay' X to Agora, a
> > player, or an organization (Payee) as long as:
> >
> > -X is a set of assets where every nonfungible asset is clearly identified
> > and every fungible asset is listed as a non-negative amount.
> >
> > -Payor currently has in eir Pockets* every nonfungible asset in X, and at
> > least as much of each nonfungible asset as specified in X.
> >
> > If any part of a payment is incorrect, none of the payment occurs. If a
> > payment succeeds then:
> >
> > -For every nonfungible asset listed, it is no longer in Payer's Pockets
> and
> > is now in Payee's Pockets.
> >
> > -For every fungible asset listed, Payer's Pockets contain Y (the
> specified
> > amount) less, and Payee's Pockets contain Y more.
> >
> > }
> >
>
