From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > An interesting thing Patrick ... > ... > An inevitable development was a clause that you could get your gold > immediately, *OR*, at the issuer's option, they could take - let's > say - three months or 6 months to pay you your gold, with a interest > payment added.
I am definitely going to read the Ewart _Money_ book. You have given an excellent example of a well-specified redemption clause. > A general use of "solvent" would probably be "able to meet its > redemption criteria". In the case of egold, goldmoney etc, "Chkoreff > Solvent" is what is meant. In the case of hugh quality fractional > reserve currencies, "solvent" would just mean able to meet whatever > it's exact redemption clause is. Exactly! I think you've generalized it well. It really does boil down to the specification of the redemption criteria and the honoring of that contract. That contract can be anything upon which two people can agree. If you agree that you can redeem only with certain restrictions, then so be it. I guess what I'm looking for is something that conveys what most people call "100% backing", without using the ill-defined notion of "backing". Generally we all consider GoldMoney, e-gold, and e-bullion to be "backed" 100% by the underlying physical asset, but people will argue over the term "backed" and I want to avoid that. Basically what I am talking about is a contractual stipulation that the Internet Gold Provider keeps all the gold in a dark vault doing nothing but collect dust. :-) If an IGP can lease out gold or "borrow" it for other expenses, that's fine if the customer agrees to it. Other IGPs will decide NOT to do this, and this gives them a distinct status. I'm looking for ways to recognize, discuss, and verify that status which many people call "100% backing". I think I'm talking about a contractual agreement where the IGP pledges to maintain a 100% dust-collecting asset base at all times. If the IGP does this, then it should have no problem satisfying any and all redemption requests, subject to ordinary logistical considerations. Perhaps there are "quasi-derivative" assets even in something like e-gold. A few days ago, JP suggested perhaps in jest that the e-bullion statement on Standard Transactions might be casting aspersions on the e-gold "MDOs" in Switzerland. I'm not really familiar with MDOs, but I imagine e-gold would have no problem getting prompt delivery on those bars if they needed them to satisfy a redemption. I'm thinking that GoldMoney, e-gold, and e-bullion share a property that distinguishes them from OSgold, Standard Transactions, etc, and it seems like that property is the contractual maintenance of a 100% dust-collecting asset base at all times subject to redemption upon demand qualified only by ordinary logistical considerations. This property is kind of like "Chkoreff Solvency", but I want to talk about what condition actually exists right now rather than some unachievable or unrealistic ideal. I guess this would get into some serious legal language, but I'm sure it could be explained in operational terms (obligations, procedures, remedies, etc.). That would enable one to say that GoldMoney, e-gold, and e-bullion are "this kind" of IG, while those other things are "that kind" of IG, and say it without jargon and ambiguous terminology. I really think it's something like "the contractual maintenance of a 100% dust-collecting asset base at all times subject to redemption upon demand qualified only by ordinary logistical considerations." But I'm a programmer, not a lawyer, Jim! :-) -- Patrick --- You are currently subscribed to e-gold-list as: archive@jab.org To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Use e-gold's Secure Randomized Keyboard (SRK) when accessing your e-gold account(s) via the web and shopping cart interfaces to help thwart keystroke loggers and common viruses.
