- Allow the current asset holders to vote by majority approval to allow a new public key to be authorized to hold this asset (sort of like members of the club who must vote to let in a new member)
Yes please! I assume you mean the public key of the issuer of the UIA (who also gets to freeze funds and manage the whitelist), which would accomplish what you want. I was asking for that in this post
(see last paragraph). It is a necessary component of my larger proposal discussed here
to make UIAs into shares of side/child DACs.
Edit: Here is how it can be done. Proposal ID 0 can be reserved for a panic button (see my proposal linked above). If enough (say >10%) of UIA upvotes proposal ID 0, the UIA is put in a state of panic (more details about what this does included in my proposal, but for simplicity just assume that it temporarily makes it so that all activity dealing with the UIA freezes except for changing votes, this especially includes all activity by the issuer). If enough (say >50%) of stake downvotes proposal ID 0, the panic is lifted as a false alarm (later implementations would also tax the 10% UIA that voted for the panic in the first place). On the other hand if enough (again >50%) of stake both upvote proposal ID 0 and also choose the same hash of the condition to satisfy to authenticate UIA issuer transactions (single payer or multisig), which would be an optional value that could be attached to the transaction during states of panic, then the panic would be lifted as a legitimate panic (no taxing the people who sounded the alarms, instead the new issuer would reward them), and the issuer is changed to the one who satisfies the conditions that hash to the value the stakeholders agreed to.
- Asset holders use approval voting to elect workers paid via dilution of the asset with new assets. Or paid with a central fund controlled by the asset holders as a whole, like this: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=5030.0
- If the asset holders exercise group control over a central fund, you could send money to the group as a whole instead of to any individual…
Seriously, you should check out the proposal in my post
. It is very similar to your proposal in that Community Funding post, but I make the mechanics a little more concrete.