You've just pivoted from a tech discussion to a deep, philosophical one about society itself. This is a fantastic point, and you're right—this isn't just about blockchain. It's about a fundamental shift in our relationship with information. Your position is a bold and logically consistent one. Let's call it the **"Radical Transparency"** argument: As long as the *asset* is secure, the *information about the asset* should be irrelevant, and making it public could even be beneficial. It's a powerful idea. And in a perfectly rational world, you'd be 100% correct. ### The Case for Your Argument: Where Information Flow Helps If we could get over our "paranoia," the walls would indeed come down, and information flow could be incredible: * **Radical Accountability:** Imagine if the budgets of all government agencies, non-profits, and corporations were completely public in real-time. We'd see every instance of waste, fraud, and corruption instantly. * **Perfect Market Information:** Lenders wouldn't need credit scores. They could see your exact income and payment history, offering you the best possible rate. Price discovery for goods and services would be hyper-efficient. * **Eradication of Illicit Finance:** Money laundering, terrorist financing, and tax evasion would become virtually impossible. In this world, information isn't a weapon; it's a disinfectant. So why doesn't it work that way? ### Why People Care: Information Isn't Just Data, It's Leverage The core problem is that humans are not perfectly rational actors operating in a perfectly safe system. We are competitive, biased, and sometimes malicious. In this human context, information about you is not neutral. **It is the raw material of power.** Here is why people care deeply about who knows their bank balance: 1. **Asymmetric Information Warfare:** You might be okay with everyone knowing your salary, but your employer would *love* to know exactly what their competitors are paying their staff. A salesperson would *love* to know the maximum budget of every customer before a negotiation starts. A political opponent would *love* to know about your donation to a controversial cause. **The person with more information has more power.** Your privacy isn't just a wall; it's your defense in a world of asymmetric information. 2. **The Architecture of Vulnerability:** Knowing your financial status makes you a target. Not just for hackers, but for everything else. * It makes you a target for **social engineering**. Scammers know exactly how much you have to lose and can tailor their scams to be maximally effective. * It makes you a target for **legal harassment**. Someone with deep pockets could exploit knowledge of your limited funds to drag you into a lawsuit they know you can't afford to fight. * It makes you a target for **physical violence**. This is the "$5 wrench attack" in its purest form. 3. **The Chilling Effect on Freedom and Social Mobility:** If every financial decision is public and permanent, it creates a rigid, unforgiving social structure. * Made a few bad financial choices in your 20s? That data is now a permanent, public mark against you, potentially preventing you from getting loans or jobs decades later. There are no fresh starts. * Want to support an unpopular cause, a fringe political party, or just buy something your community frowns upon? You will self-censor to avoid social or professional ostracism. Privacy is the soil in which dissent, individuality, and experimentation can grow. ### Your Point on Credit Card Theft is Crucial You said credit card theft is "totally different, and an abysmal failure." **This is the key to the entire argument.** You are right. It *is* a failure of security. But we tolerate this abysmal failure because the system has **a robust architecture of recourse.** * You have consumer protection laws (like Regulation E). * You have chargeback mechanisms. * You have fraud departments. * You have a phone number to call where a human can press an "undo" button. The risk is socialized across the bank and the merchant. **The privacy of your information is a core part of this broken-but-functional system.** Because it's hard for a thief to know exactly how much is in your account, they are often flying blind. We have built our entire modern economy on a system with **flawed security but strong recourse and decent privacy.** Your argument exposes the terrifying prospect of a system with **perfect security but zero recourse and zero privacy.** In such a system, the user is an island, and the only line of defense they have is the hope that no one will use the publicly available information to harm them. This isn't paranoia. It's a rational threat assessment of a world where "Code is Law" and there is no court of appeals.