Newbie here, so please forgive me if this is a dumb question – I haven’t seen anything on the forum covering it yet.
The topic is about recourse and trust with regard to shareholders and the quasi-contracts we’re defining in many of our motions…
Using a FLOT motion as an example, we tend to say things like…
- “Jimmy promises to be a member of FLOT for one year”
- “Sally will have 24-hour response time”
- “Bob will be paid 100 NBT assuming he meets the performance requirements defined above”
My concern with statements like this is that it’s open to a lot of interpretation – we might as well put a clause in here for arbitration (“Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules”).
(Just to be clear, I don’t want to do that, but the point remains that we’re dealing in old-style contract situations here, which means that a human will have to make a decision – and we humans are fickle creatures .)
I know this whole “smart contracts” stuff is a bit far-fetched for now, but can we maybe toss around ideas for how we could put “whether or not the agreement was honored” into code somehow?
- “… promises to be a member of FLOT for one year” -->
- “Payment date == 1 year from now”
- “… will have a 24-hour response time” -->
- “Script will send pings randomly via e-mail. Captcha must be answered within 24-hours. If not, first 5 misses deduct up to 50% of compensation, beyond 5 voids this contract (aka, no compensation)”
- “… will be paid 100 NBT” -->
- Payment script is pre-sent and signed (by whom… I don’t know?) with a P2SH that is passed ahead of time?
- (Side question: can we burn or refund any NBT not awarded by the pre-signed transaction?)
Hoping that someone much smarter than I am can tell me if I’m just talking crazy…