pull down to refresh
I do not envy the people setting out the terms for that oracle to decide on :)
Talk about moral hazard. Ideally, the aggressor would lose something substantial.
Ok, let's play that out. In an offensive war the aggressor puts up a pre determined amount. Ideally enough to weaken them so they can't try this again. The defending party being the one with the most to lose in a loss considering territory still has to put up a bit as well to lock up the transaction.
I can only imagine the debate at the UN, you've now made sanctions obsolete & going war adds more risk. Hmmm
Sanctions made themselves obsolete by not working.
I didn't propose a specific form, so it's hard to "play out" my idea, but the point is to disincentivize invasions.
True, I was just going with the idea it sparked in mind. Also I agree sanctions are the go to your room of geopolitics
You hear a lot in btc circles about how sanctions are useless. Based on the little I know, there certainly does seem to be reason to be suspicious. I do wonder, though, if they're really as useless as bitcoiners like to maintain. Seems more likely that they have a narrow window of applicability, and, like most things, they get used outside of this window and consequently don't produce the desires results.
I meant it less as an absolute and more as an empirical regularity of history. Sanctions have a really bad track record at accomplishing their stated goals.
Plus each warring nation would need to find a bitcoiner to help them sign the transaction.
To add some humor, both warring nations find a neutral 3rd party. Create a 2 of 3 multisig with the pot going to the winner of the conflict.
But looking at the wars fought between Italian city states under a hard money world is a good example. Granted the Medici family could finance a side.