The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned for things they don’t like. It would be challenging to stop without mandating some explicit formula too, which can be gamed.
> The poster was noting there is historic precedent for parties to charge punitive fees to the point it’s defacto banned
Obviously, the answer is to disallow that.
And if people break the law, and do it anyway, by trying to be "clever" then a judge and jury can punish them.
This punishment works especially well, with this thing called "discovery", in which the legal system can parse through your internal communications, to see if you are intending on defacto banning it.
> It would be challenging to stop without mandating some explicit formula too
No it wouldn't be.
Just do it, like we do many other laws. Give a vague description of whats not allowed, and let the jury figure it out. And give a large fine if they lose the court case.
That's enough deterrence to stop people from gaming the system. Just give them a huge fine if they try to do that.
Well, what do you mean by "people"? If you mean "a majority of voters", then I doubt that's actually true, for quite a few types of businesses and transactions that are currently banned from payment networks.
If you mean "those in power who can and do make decisions that a majority of voters wouldn't actually support", then sure, I think that's the case, but that doesn't make it right, and that doesn't make it inevitable, either.
