Thom I wholeheartedly agree with your philosophy fundamentals and very much agree alot of your posts, but I think this issue isn't as clear cut as you think it is. The ability to enter voluntarily into a contractual agreement for someone to have control over your assets is a freedom like any other and important in certain use cases. I also think it is very important to allow for both scenarios and that the incentives aren't skewed either way by the blockchain whether its total freedom of your assets, or the abdication of ownership to play out and let the pieces fall where they may.
My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!
So long as there is a clear cut separation between controllable assets and Market Pegged Assets, with reasoning and fail-safes ensuring that the separation remains indefinitely then I do not think there is a problem.
I look at it as we are adding the ability for one entity to control the assets of another entity, to nullify the purchase, to offer something in place of true property ownership
Then that particular asset is
not property, but a contract or agreement of some other kind. So what?
If you want property then buy MPAs and don't trust any issuing-entities.
Why can't there be both? BitShares aims to assimilate all areas of finance, sometimes people want somebody else to have access to their assets.
Reputation and competition will "regulate" these issuers and nobody is forcing anybody to use them. Maybe that is the danger that you predict, but external-force cannot be solved by bts code.
BM has talked about the need to move away from a contract based society, as it requires force to guarantee all promises. Instead, reputation and web-of-trust type systems should replace them.
MPA's do not require trust, but for everything else that does then UIA and asset-control is available.
I understand that an absence of an answer here doesn't mean that 'infection' is impossible, but I would like you to hypothesize on how a bad-actor could corrupt the MPA system, specifically using the tools given to them by UIA control.
If UIA's didn't have 'compliance' features, then how would these attack vectors be mitigated?
I am assuming you are worried about a government using the threat of imprisonment to force users to adopt a fiat 2.0 bitasset, where they have all the power and control they currently wield.
How do UIA compliance features aid them in this endevour?
"USE THIS OR ELSE!" would seem to me to work just as well if only MPA's existed, they could just premine their own bts chain and get people to use that instead.
My reasoning for this is that it provides a clear cut Apples to Apples comparison of exactly why freedom is so incredibly goddamn important!I don't think compliance UIAs help baddies, but they do allow users to experience holding both free and controlled assets and help them realize the benefits and pitfalls of each.