On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:28 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > I support this. > > On reading the judgement, I'm quite amused, but left a bit dissatisfied. > In particular, I don't see how this is different than other contract > clauses that "affirm consent" via an elongated process (e.g. with Notice > or whatnot). The main difference is the final trigger is the passage of a > deadline. But that deadline is also public information. If a public > clause read "If noone objects to a change within X, it automatically takes > effect", it's not clear to me that this would be blocked, as all the > information is publicly available even if the deadline passes silently.
It might work for amendments, which only require consent. But here you have to "publicly make an agreement", and I can't see how the agreement is made "in a public message" if it takes effect automatically after the message is complete? It strikes me as being more akin to "I transfer G. 5 coins in 5 minutes". -Aris
