Index ← 3664 CFJ 3665 3666 → text
===============================  CFJ 3665  ===============================

      D. Margaux's attempt in this message to transfer coins to the
      contract between em and G. is EFFECTIVE.


Caller:                        D. Margaux
Barred:                        Aris

Judge:                         ATMunn
Judgement:                     TRUE



Called by D. Margaux:                             01 Oct 2018 00:05:00
Assigned to L:                                    01 Oct 2018 06:01:00
L recused:                                        20 Oct 2018 14:05:00
Assigned to ATMunn:                               20 Oct 2018 14:05:00
Judged TRUE by ATMunn:                            27 Oct 2018 01:21:00


Caller's Evidence:

On Sun, Sep 30, 2018 at 5:05 PM D Margaux wrote:
> The text of the contract between me and G. is provided at bottom of this
> email.
> I transfer 30 coins to nichdel.
> I transfer all of my coins to the contract below between me and G.
> I cause nichdel to transfer 30 coins to me.

///// Contract between D. Margaux and G. /////

1. This is a contract between D. Margaux and G. (the “parties”). Other
players CANNOT join this contract without consent of both parties. This
contract CAN be terminated by consent of both parties.

2. The name of this contract is the “First Bank of Agora.”

3. A party to this contract has “on deposit in the contract” an amount of
coins equal to the total number of coins e has deposited in this contract,
minus the total number of coins e has withdrawn from the contract.

4. Any party to this contract CAN transfer coins to this contract.  Making
such a transfer is called “depositing” those coins in the contract.

5. Any party to this contract CAN cause the contract to transfer to em any
amount of coins less than or equal to the number of coins e has on deposit
in the contract.  Making such a transfer is called “withdrawing” the coins
from the contract.

///// end of contract /////

On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 7:12 PM Kerim Aydin  wrote:
> I agree to the exchanged Contract with this hash.  -G.
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, D Margaux wrote:
> > G. and I have exchanged a document that has text with the following SHA256
> > hash:
> >
> > 58629980096A5E997EC5CF62C04B59EBFBEEAF81DD4785B50CCF190E1F24CE2D
> >
> > I agree to be bound by that text and I agree and consent for that text to
> > be a contract between me and G., if G. likewise agrees.
> >


Judge ATMunn's Arguments:


I judge CFJ 3665 TRUE because the rule defining coins does not restrict
their ownership, but rather expands it to include facilities, leaving
contracts still able to own coins.

I judge CFJ 3666 TRUE because of the same reasons.


The first issue that must be addressed in judging these CFJs is whether
or not the contract they mention exists. Obviously, if it does not
exist, there is no way assets can be transferred to it.

According to the rule defining contracts, Rule 1742, a contract is
simply an agreement between two or more individuals to be bound by the
contract's text. In the original message by G. (see Evidence section), e
states that the contract's text had been shared privately between em and
D. Margaux, and had a specified hash. Both G. and D. Margaux clearly and
publicly consented and agreed to the contract's text. The later provided
text's hash does indeed line up with the hash provided by G.

The question which needs to be answered is whether or not the contract
exists if its regulations are not publicly known. It seems logical that
the contract does indeed exist, as a contract is simply an agreement;
however, it has no binding power. No obligations within the contract
have any authority if it is unknown exactly what they are, therefore
they cannot be enforced. Likewise, the contract cannot own assets, have
Mint Authority, etc. However, as soon as the regulations of the contract
are clearly and unambiguously stated, publicly known, and verified to be
the same as the originally agreed text, the contract has full authority
according to its text.

Now that it is established that the contract does indeed exist, and can
own assets, the main issue of the CFJs must be addressed. The contract
specifies that any of its parties CAN transfer coins to it. However,
Rule 2483 asserts that coins and similar currencies can be owned by
Agora, players, and facilities, but it does not specify contracts. And,
according to Rule 2576, "If an asset's backing document restricts its
ownership to a class of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or
transferred to an entity outside that class." This appears to be a
conflict between the contract and the rules, in which circumstance the
rules would take precedence, as the ability for contracts to overtake
rules would likely cause serious issues for Agora.

But, upon further inspection, Rule 2483 only says that Agora, players,
and facilities can own coins. It does not seem to necessarily "restrict
its ownership," but rather expand ownership. This would mean that
contracts actually can own coins, as by default they can own all assets.
Therefore, the First Bank of Agora contract can own coins, meaning G.
and D. Margaux's attempts to transfer coins to it is EFFECTIVE.

I judge CFJ 3665 and CFJ 3666 both TRUE.