What seems questionable? It seems like the wording is pretty solid to me. The obligations of everyone is well-defined. I can't think of a way that either could get out of their obligations while fufilling the contract. That is, except for the
or its equivalent in another crypto
line. IMO that could be a little problematic for @neoxian if @mango-juice tries:
- Create a Steem Engine token, call it
SCAMNEOXIAN - Issue themselves 1000
SCAMNEOXIAN - Place a buy order for 1
SCAMNEOXIANat 1 STEEM, makingSCAMNEOXIAN"worth" 1 STEEM - Issuing 1000
SCAMNEOXIANto @neoxian and saying that it's "worth" 1000 STEEM
(of course I don't think @mango-juice will do that)
So while there is some wording that can be used to scam @neoxian, this is only a problem for @neoxian, and I can't see anything questionable that could be used against the loaner by @neoxian.
What is not written in that post is Trust. Yes you are quite right there, it's not so hard to create a SCAM token, but no nobody thinks about the after story.
Whatever I am in here, all credit goes to @neoxian and the city. I grew up in the city from a red fish.
Last but not least, there are more agreement conversion in discord which includes that only reputated tokens are allowed for exchange.
Posted using Partiko Android
Yea, that part could probably use more clarity. It's probably not a big deal. I don't automatically accept any crypto or token in existence. There are certain ones that I accept and I wouldn't take some strange token as payment.
I meant no insult. My comment was mainly about the necessity to acquire the private key. From everything I have read it is not safe to give the private key. Unless I misread the article and it was not the private key. If that is the case I do apologise.