spoon-discuss: Some notes about debts

[Jörg Rathlev <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

As there seems to be a lot of confusion about debts, so here's a summary of the current debt rules (as I interpret them):

There are two methods of creating a debt. First, an Agent can create a debt in their own ownership. Of course, e doesn't owe this debt to anyone but emself, unless e transfers it to an Agent, which e might want to do instead of an otherwise required point transfer.

The other method is that an Agent owes Points -- this pending point transfer is a debt. But who creates such debts? As there isn't any rule that states otherwise, I suppose they must be created by the Agent who owes them, in eir own ownership, as stated by R347. If this is the case, the debt is of course also payable to the debtor.


I think the fundamental problem with the currrent rules is that there are two ways of creating a debt, but all debts are governed by the same rules. I suppose R347 was meant to create a possibility for players to transfer a (newly created) debt instead of transferring points. However, as soons as a player needs to transfer these points, another debt is already created automatically by R358.

I think the objects described by R347 should really be called IOUs, not debts, and it should be possible to transfer these IOUs instead of points to satisfy a debt, if the creditor agrees.

A debt and an IOU are not the same: An IOU is the documentation of a debt, not the debt itself. An IOU has an owner, a debt exists between a creditor and a debtor but isn't owned by either of them. An IOU can be used as a replacement for points (in fact, it is a special type of currency), while a debt is not a currency but requires the transfer of a certain amount of units of a currency.

However, with the current rules, there is no difference between IOUs and debts. This creates some really weird problems, and I bet this can be exploited even if my RFJ is ruled false.


Joerg