Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 17:25, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: > >> Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for >> negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I >> think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and >> this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). > Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 > (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero... > >When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an >amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified >amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other >calculations. > Ah, yes, sorry, I forgot about that. Then yes, it would be floored at 0. -- Janet Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 3:57 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: Actually, the fee-based actions rules don't have any special cases for negative values, and you can't destroy a negative number of assets. So I think if the required fee is negative, it's just not possible to do (and this is... not a crazy outcome policy-wise?). Looking at the rules again after what snail said, I think it's in rule 2577 (Asset Actions) instead, where it effectively floors it at zero... When a rule indicates creating, destroying, or transferring an amount of assets that is not a natural number, the specified amount is rounded up to the nearest natural number after all other calculations. -- Mischief
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 14:20, secretsnail9 via agora-business wrote: > The minimum is 0 just because of how paying fees work. You can't possibly > create spendies or anything. > >> On Jun 1, 2024, at 6:08 AM, Mischief via agora-business >> wrote: >> >> >> Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on X-2 calculation... I >> also change my vote to AGAINST on 9115. >> >> -- >> Mischief >> > > -- > snail There's no minimum in the proposal tho. which there should be. It should be 1. -- nix Arbitor, Spendor
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Promotor] Distribution of Propositions 9114-9119
On 6/1/24 7:07 AM, Mischief wrote: On 5/31/24 7:26 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 5/26/24 21:33, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: On 5/25/24 13:39, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote: 9115~ snail 2.0 Lode Stone Well: I change my vote on the referendum on Proposal 9115 to AGAINST. There is no "once" limiting the transfer. Additionally, I just realized there's no minimum on X-2 calculation... I also change my vote to AGAINST on 9115. Drat, that might have been 15 minutes too late... -- Mischief
