On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 11:08, Charles Reiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 10:57, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Proposal: Fix asset redefinition >> (AI = 2, please) >> >> Amend Rule 2166 (Assets) by replacing this text: >> >> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract >> (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because >> its backing document defines its existence. >> >> with this text: >> >> An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract >> (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because >> its backing document defines its existence. If multiple rules >> and/or contracts attempt to define the same asset, then its >> backing document is the one that was created first. > > Can we try 'public contract' somewhere so people can't subvert proto'd > public contracts by creating an appropriate private contract faster?
Also, for a similar issue, rules need to take precedence, so people can't create an appropriate contract between when a proposal creating an asset is voted on and when it takes effect. - woggle
