Would this proposal allow end users to request the transfer of a single IPv4 /32? Or is that prevented by RIPE requiring parties to a transfer to be LIRs? I am less worried about LIRs doing something stupid, but if it were allowed, I would guess that some end users would attempt to use /32 transfers the same way they use phone number portability.
IMO it might be better to preserve some sort of minimum transfer size. Dropping it to a /24 (or farther) would make sense to me. Going all the way to /32 seems unnecessary and a bit risky, unless there are other good safeguards in place to ensure that any entities transferring a /32 are really in a position to route it themselves, and aren't just trying to impose the routing externality on the rest of the global table (and blaming someone else when their IPv4 /32 announcement isn't accepted everywhere).
-Scott