Thank you for your comments! > I wonder if this rule text could be a contract. Anyone can join, and > anyone who's not the creator of a promise can leave.
I thought about that. It would definitely need a helper amendment (for the acting on behalf thing, which I'm going to need to add anyway), but it *could* be. The biggest reason I'm not going that route is that I want the Notary to have responsibility for tracking (even if the current Notary agreed to track the contract state, what about future Notaries?). Anyway, this fits well in the ruleset even if it doesn't strictly speaking need to be there. > > Promises are a class of assets, tracked by the Notary. Their essential > > attributes are their title, text, and creator. A person CAN, by > > announcement, > > create a promise, specifying its text and becoming its creator. A > > promise's > > owner is referred to as its bearer. Promises with the same title, text, > > creator, and bearer are fungible. > > I think you need to say who owns a promise when it's first created. Yep. > > By creating a promise, a person consents to it being carried out. > > Might be better to make that consent conditional on the promise being > cashed? I can't think of a plausible situation in which it could > matter, but here's a contrived situation. Suppose I create a promise > saying I become a candidate for the election for some office. That > might count as consent to be made the holder of the office under > R1006, but probably shouldn't unless the promise actually gets cashed. Fair point. How about "By creating a promise, a person consents to it being carried out when it is cashed"? -Aris
