=============================== CFJ 3891 ===============================
In the above statement, ATMunn transferred a coin to Aris.
Called by ATMunn: 07 Dec 2020 20:11:31
Assigned to G.: 07 Dec 2020 20:19:53
Judged FALSE by G.: 30 Dec 2020 18:03:03
Caller's Evidence [the 'above statement']:
On 12/7/2020 12:11 PM, ATMunn via agora-business wrote:
> I transfer the coin that has been in my possession the longest to Aris.
Arguments FOR: Since all coins are fungible, it doesn't matter which one
is transferred; it only matters that one was transferred.
Arguments AGAINST: Because all coins are fungible, you can't refer to a
specific one to transfer it.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
"Fungible" appears as a descriptor in the ruleset, without definition:
Rule 2578/1: Instances of a currency with the same owner are fungible.
The dictionary definition of 'fungible' is 'able to replace or be replaced
by another identical item; mutually interchangeable.' Note that this does
not say 'indistinguishable across all domains'. Fungibility may have a
specific domain: 1 paper dollar is exchangable with 100 pennies for the
purpose of satisfying a debt, but not for the purposes of melting for
For a virtual currency in Agora, the most sensible domain seems to be
"across the domain of records". The rules had a relatively short-lived
definition of fungibility in R1467/7 (June 2000 - Oct 2003):
> Since units of Currency are fungible, it is not necessary for
> the Recordkeepor of a Currency to track the individual
> ownership of each unit; rather, it is sufficient to maintain a
> record of the total number of units possessed by each entity
> which possesses any number of units of that Currency.
While a definition removed 17 years ago is hardly binding, it reflects the
game custom in use ever since, and matches common sense, so this seems
like a reasonable specification of domain for fungibility. So, for a
fungible asset, the recordkeepor need not track individual units outside
of total balances.
However, let's say someone creates a contract with the following clause:
- Whenever currency is transferred to this contract that does not
already have a serial number, the units of currency are numbered with a
sequential serial number (units arriving simultaneously are given the next
range of numbers). In order to transfer currency from this contract,
explicit serial numbers must be used in the announcement of transfer.
This would seem to create, as per R1742/22, an ability to transfer assets
from the contract under conditions of non-fungibility - that is,
individual units must be tracked for the Treasuror to know if a transfer
1. Would this create a requirement for the Treasuror to track units?
This Court finds no - any such contract would be in textual conflict with
the R2578 (power=3) statement that instances of currency belonging to the
contract are fungible, and further, it would be beyond a reasonable effort
to impose such duties. Such clauses would lead to all transfers from the
contract being ambiguous in terms of conditionals (as evaluating the
conditionals would require distinguishing things that are legally
2. Would such transfers work anyway?
It would be possible to infer such a conditional as meaningless extra
information, that is, the treasuror could say "You attempted to transfer
coin #54423. I don't legally recognize the number, but you've got some
coins, so I'll record a transfer of 1 coin (that is: any coin)."
In some senses, this would be a good interpretation - it might allow a
party to a contract to recordkeep serial numbers on the side for some
purpose, while not interfering with the treasuror's duties. However,
announcement specification exists for a reason. Saying "I transfer coin
#65444" generally means "I transfer this one coin, and if I don't have it
no transfer happens" rather than "I transfer this one coin, and if I don't
have it then I transfer any other coin" (if the actor had meant the
latter, e would have left off the serial number). So adding a clause to a
transfer that attempts to distinguish the indistinguishable is better off
simply failing (since the actor's intent couldn't be fulfilled without
ambiguity). That's the situation in the attempted transfer by ATMunn, so
the judgement is FALSE.