Is it supposed to say “either or both”?

Yes it is and now it does.

The antitrust clause is too subjective. If Derrick has a clear idea of what would and wouldn’t count, let’s make it a rule.

The idea is to stop transfers that aren’t made with both contractors intending to win via ROI. This is somewhat objective in nature. Trades with zero on one side are easy to ban, but its easy enough to get around that ban by paying $5B for a single resource. On the other hand, I could see someone trying to corner the market on a resource and charging large amounts for it, and its hard to distinguish between that context (and several others) and someone who is trading for benefits outside of the dynasty.

I suppose we could try and pass a ban on such behavior. It wouldn’t be terribly enforceable, but it may be enough.

If this dynasty doesn’t peter out, I wouldn’t find it as fun to have someone win in a similar manner as derrick did the last dynasty.
This rule doesn’t prevent a collaboration like derrick and I did. The funds are exchanged regardless of derrick’s input, so if victory can be achieved within the span of 5 minutes, the fact that derrick can reduce the trader’s funds later is irrelevant.
That said, if there were a more limited way of exchanging resources that balances player’s working together versus lone contractors I’d vote for it.

Might work to allow players to start their own Resource auctions: winner removes the Resources from the auctioneer, and pays them the Funds.

@card:

So far this dynasty doesn’t have a win condition, it has a scoring mechanic for when the game ends. As long as you don’t do this right as the game ends, I’ll have plenty of time.

That said, the auction method is both an elegant solution and on theme.

self-killed