For anyone interested in learning more about the need for this, I strongly recommend Moneyland. It really does a good job leaning in on tension between (1) priv

For anyone interested in learning more about the need for this, I strongly recommend Moneyland. It really does a good job leaning in on tension between (1) privacy, (2) liberty, and (3) Rule-of-Law. All three of those are good things, but they also all step on each others toes. Here's a taste: Back in the 1960s, Swiss banks held money for Nazi war criminals, but they also held money for tax dodgers and for refugees. These groups of people all sought secrecy/privacy/confidentiality (delete as applicable), meaning the evil money washed around with the naughty money, which washed around with the scared money. All three groups of people benefited from those first eurobonds, because they provided an income on money that had previously been static, but not all three were advertised equally prominently. Swiss banks loved to claim that their bank secrecy had been designed to protect Jewish wealth from Nazi confiscation, and kept quiet about all the dictators whose money they also hoarded, or the tax dodging they facilitated. In effect, the refugees were being used to run interference for the others, and to make the Swiss banks look high-minded, rather than like the criminogenic institutions that they were. Swiss banks insisted that the reason they didn't want to reveal the details on their clients was because that would endanger the legitimate interests of people seeking protection from rapacious governments.