I am EXTREMELY wary of extra vote mechanisms but I've never seen large-scale pooling on Agora like on Blognomic so perhap it's not a problem. Maybe.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 3:32 AM nch via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On 6/11/20 8:20 PM, ATMunn via agora-discussion wrote: > >>> Enact a power-1 rule entitled "Amulets" with the following text: > >>> Amulets are a class of assets, tracked by the Teasuror, which > can be > >>> owned by players. Each amulet has the following attributes: > type, > >>> effect, tier. The effect and tier are tied to the type of the > >>> amulet, and are all defined elsewhere in the rules. > >>> > >>> Wearer is an amulet switch, with possible values of all active > >>> players or none (the default). A player CAN wear (syn. put on, > >>> equip) an amulet e owns by announcement, flipping the amulet's > >>> wearer to emself. E is then said to be wearing that amulet. A > player > >>> CAN take off (syn. dequip) an amulet e is wearing, flipping the > >>> amulet's wearer to none. Players CANNOT wear more than one > amulet at > >>> a time. An amulet with its wearer set to a player CANNOT be > >>> transferred. > >> Switches need to define which office tracks them (or they'll create a > >> new one for it). I don't think the fact that the asset is tracked by the > >> Treasuror makes this switch tracked by em too - although that might be a > >> good idea. Needs "by announcement" for taking them off. > >> > >> There's a weird semantic thing happening with the CANNOT statement - you > >> define wearing as an event (which flips the switch) not a state earlier > >> in, so this reads like you can't flip two amulets' switches at the same > >> time, not that you can't have two with their switch set to you. In fact > >> if you swap it with the synonyms it becomes more obvious: "A player > >> CANNOT*put on* more than one amulet at a time." Might want to change it > >> to "if a player is the wearer of an amulet, e CANNOT wear another > >> amulet." Though that sounds awkward. > >> > >> What stops someone from buying multiple active amulets and equipping, > >> using and dequipping them at will? They don't circumvent the cooldowns, > >> but they still get a lot of power that way. > > Maybe just make it so a player can only own one amulet at a time? That > > would get rid of the whole "wearing" thing too. > > > That may work. Another thing I should've mentioned here: I'd strongly > encourage allowing contracts to own these. If players can only own one > then they'd need an intermediary if they wanted to trade an amulet for > someone else's, plus it'd allow for the complex trades NAX is designed > to enable. > > -- > nch > Webmastor, NAX Exchange Manager > > >
