Definitions of Treasure: "Items obtained by single party members when other characters have no interest in that item are also not considered to be treasure." This clause needs clarification, and I am confused as to what it might refer. Certainly a character who can not use a particular weapon or armour might seem to have no "interest in it" but to be fair, it still needs to be considered as far as wealth distribution. If something else is meant by this line, then it needs to be clarified.
Dubious Valuables: The clauses listed here are unfair. The party should decide as a whole whether or not dangerous items needs to be destroyed, or whether there is an alternative way to generate revenue from it… there may be trustworthy organisations that would offer rewards for surrender of such goods, for example. It'd be hardly heroic if Frodo had to pay off Boromir for the one ring, and he'd never be able to afford to do it. This rule as written is open to huge amounts of abuse, and could potentially make one or two party members exceedingly rich at the expense of their comrades, simply because people want to play the alignments of their characters. Consider the amount of onyx the party came across in the last adventure. If there was division in the party over its fate, the characters who wanted it destroyed would have little way of paying the costthey might have had to sell all their items and be in debt to the rest of the party for some time. It's not fair and it's not fun. The game is one of heroic fantasy. The party is an heroic organisation… surely it is within the organisation's best interest to cover heroic actions. Destroying an evil tome is no different than destroying an evil dragonboth have a value, but are too dangerous to allow to continue to exist.