Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On 6/19/20 5:54 AM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via agora-discussion wrote: > Is "intent to pay that fee" strong enough? It doesn't seem to me as if > that necessarily requires the payment being possible or succeeding. This is the existing wording, and is protected by the next paragraph. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On 6/18/20 11:42 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
> On 6/18/20 3:22 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-business wrote:
>> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
>>
>> Title: Fee-based mechanisms
>>
>> Author: Jason
>>
>> Coauthors: Falsifian
>>
>> Adoption index: 3.0
>
>
> I withdraw the above proposal.
>
> I submit (but do not pend) the following proposal:
>
> Title: Fee-based methods
> Author: Jason
> Coauthors: Falsifian
> Adoption index: 3.0
>
> {
>
> Amend Rule 2579 by replacing the first three paragraphs with the following:
>
> {
>
> If the Rules associate payment of a set of assets (hereafter the fee for
> the action; syns: cost, price, charge) with performing an action, that
> method for performing that action is a fee-based method.
>
> If the fee is a non-integer quantity of a fungible asset, the actual fee
> is the next highest integer amount of that asset.
>
> To use a fee-based method, an entity (the Actor) who is otherwise
> permitted to perform the action must announce that e is performing the
> action; the announcement must specify the correct set of assets for the
> fee and indicate intent to pay that fee for the sole purpose of using
> that method to perform that action.
Is "intent to pay that fee" strong enough? It doesn't seem to me as if
that necessarily requires the payment being possible or succeeding.
>
> }
>
> and replacing the final paragraph with the following:
>
> {
>
> If a fee-based method to perform an action has a fee of no assets, that
> action CAN be performed by announcement, but the actor SHOULD announce
> that there was a 0 or empty fee.
>
> }
>
>
> [Inspired by Falsifian pointing out that winning the game is/was a
> fee-based action, which might have meant that all attempts to win the
> game required a fee. This removes actions being fee-based and instead
> makes methods fee-based. This change is also designed to keep all
> protections and (hopefully) protect existing precedent for fee-based
> actions.]
>
> }
>
--
Publius Scribonius Scholasticus, Herald, Referee, Tailor, Pirate
Champion, Badge of the Great Agoran Revival, Badge of the Salted Earth
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 at 03:32, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) > > > I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a > fee of no assets, that action CAN be performed by announcement, but the > actor SHOULD announce that there was a 0 or empty fee." (just dropping > the "invoke" phrasing entirely). > > -- > Jason Cobb Thanks, looks good. - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On 6/18/20 11:29 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: > What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" > phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) I would phrase it as "If a fee-based method to perform an action has a fee of no assets, that action CAN be performed by announcement, but the actor SHOULD announce that there was a 0 or empty fee." (just dropping the "invoke" phrasing entirely). -- Jason Cobb
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
> >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the > >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be > >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is > >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > > I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear > > enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by > > announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely > > fishy to me for different reasons. > > > > - Falsifian > > > Yeah, I knew the "invoke" phrasing was weird when I wrote it, and the > rules only define performing actions by announcement, not using methods > by announcement. The cleanest solution might be to just drop the > requirement of announcing a zero fee (or turn it into a SHOULD). > > -- > Jason Cobb What would the text look like then? (I don't follow how the "invoke" phrasing relates to the requirement about specifying zero fee.) - Falsifian
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
On 6/18/20 11:08 PM, James Cook via agora-discussion wrote: >> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee > s/actions/assets/ Thanks, fixed on local copy. > >> for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, > You lost a comma after "price". Fixed. > >> that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism. > Shouldn't it be "method" rather than "mechanism"? (Everywhere in the > proposal.) > > The rules do talk about mechanisms in some places. I'm not sure what > the difference is, but e.g. R2125 and 1728 use the word "method" for > the sort of thing I think this proposal is trying to describe. Looks like you're right. Fixed. > >> If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the >> specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be >> invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is >> an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. > I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear > enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by > announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely > fishy to me for different reasons. > > - Falsifian Yeah, I knew the "invoke" phrasing was weird when I wrote it, and the rules only define performing actions by announcement, not using methods by announcement. The cleanest solution might be to just drop the requirement of announcing a zero fee (or turn it into a SHOULD). -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Non-fee based mechanisms for fee-based actions
> If the Rules associate payment of a set of actions (hereafter the fee s/actions/assets/ > for the action; syns: cost, price charge) with performing an action, You lost a comma after "price". > that mechanism for performing that action is a fee-based mechanism. Shouldn't it be "method" rather than "mechanism"? (Everywhere in the proposal.) The rules do talk about mechanisms in some places. I'm not sure what the difference is, but e.g. R2125 and 1728 use the word "method" for the sort of thing I think this proposal is trying to describe. > If the Rules define a fee-based mechanism to perform an action, but the > specified set of assets is the empty set, then the mechanism can be > invoked by announcement, but the announcement must include that there is > an (empty or 0) fee for the mechanism. I'm not sure if the meaning of "invoking" a mechanism/method is clear enough. What if we kept "then the action can be performed by announcement" here? I don't feel strongly; both versions seem vaguely fishy to me for different reasons. - Falsifian
