Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's... actually a really interesting idea, but you have to consider who you're building the system for - governments, or normal everyday people? There is a principle, that I think has basically been proven at this point, if not academically: A: In any non-optional system used by n people, the bad actors using that system are B: It is impossible to prevent bad actors from misusing any system. C: Trying too hard mea…
It's strictly opt-in, but you won't be able to buy anything if everyone else requires auditable money and you don't want to opt-in. The more people who adopt it, the less tenable it is to stay out. Governments are people. People who use this system nefariously can be sanctioned by refusing to accept money they've touched. We're so afraid of governments misusing their power because our checks and balances have failed…
From a purely selfish standpoint, I would not want to use this system, because I don't want advertisers, insurance companies, malcontents, stalkers, debt collectors, busybodies, three-letter-agencies, data brokers, or any other random with an internet connection to know that I spent money at a hypothetical STD clinic or received money for participating in a scientific study.
This plan introduces a huge number of of unknown unknowns, where right now, we've got a pretty good idea of how widespread the corruption is, the forms it generally takes, and what, if anything, we can do about it. And since past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, I can look backwards to see how behavioral data is abused right now, and say with complete certainty that it would be abused more under this system.
No thanks.