Hedge funds already know broad based mutuals will have to purchase these so can sneak in before them and then sell to them for a marginal gain. Mayhaps the newest strategy for exiting is generating so much hype that you're guaranteed an exit by retail retirement funds?

In my view, anyone participating in these markets does so knowing that the outcomes are within the control of other participants. I can't think of any other reason individual account activity is public.

My personal preference would be to allow nearly unlimited legal immigration but strip welfare programs for all. In this way we allow anyone and everyone to become an economic participant, voting participant after the naturalization process, and mitigate those immigrating purely for handouts.

But I haven't thought through this policy well. Maybe there is something this seemingly solution is missing.

- The feds show up

- A bugular breaks in and grabs your computer

- You're selling your house and host an open house

- You have curious children and want to keep them from live booting and reading your tax returns

My hypothesis is that this would lead to demands for policy changes to prevent that, which can realistically only be done via actual identification or hardware based attlestation (which is identification).

Does that seem wrong? If we didn't care if people could bypass the system, there is no reason to force even privacy preserving barriers, since parents literally have all the tools necessary to deal with this now, from router guards, to parental controls on computers, to device enrollment for iPhone and android systems.

I recognize, in some capacity, that this isn't the norm and in the US "professional engineer" is protected and not simply "engineer", but it feels akin to stolen valor to me.

You probably risk some legal fallout though, so be cautious.

But I still have reservations that this would be the "foot in the door", because people like me will generate and publish tokens publicly, and then lobbyists will use this as the reason why we can't allow the use of private keys unless the website receiving them can certify they belong to the user presenting them, thus forcing a rework of the implementation.

But then I learned that anyone can look up my name and home address from my call sign and decided not to publicly advertise when I'm not home.

This doesn't seem like market-moving material, but maybe it's just status quo.

But how can this be done so that the site and I'd verifier can't collude on a backchannel to unmask you?

> In a non-functional democracy, I guess don't complain if someone burns your car "to counter the state" some day if you think like this.

I don't advocate for destroying private property. Sharing tokens doesn't destroy property or ip/copyright.