Remote Code Execution as a Service (AKA sandboxing distributed executable code remotely) -- is a brilliant business idea in my opinion, but IF AND ONLY IF such

Remote Code Execution as a Service (AKA sandboxing distributed executable code remotely) -- is a brilliant business idea in my opinion, but IF AND ONLY IF such code execution can be guaranteed secure on end user's machines -- and my thoughts are that given all of the (lack of) security related issues that we read about in this day and age -- that it would be difficult, bordering on impossible, to create, much less rigorously prove such a security guarantee... Still, if one were to attempt this exercise -- one path might be via extremely small emulated instruction set in an extremely tiny and open source (much easier to audit by end users) virtual machine where the emulated instruction set is NOT the same as the one on the host machine (i.e., RISC-V emulated instructions on x86 or ARM host...). Would such an emulator be slower than native host execution? Probably, possibly many times slower... But, what might be lost in speed -- might be made up for in the ability to audit (at least better) for security concerns... So in summation, is it a good idea? Possibly -- but it needs that extra rigorous security guarantee which is very difficult to get exactly right in this day and age... Also -- supposing that this business model was completely viable from a security perspective -- the next step to building such a system might be to build an auction site for CPU cycles (or compute ability/compute time) -- sort of like an "EBay for highly distributed but sandboxed code execution" (clients bid on renting compute resources, end users bid on selling theirs) which would be an interesting business model, IMHO... Related: SETI@home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI@home https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETI@home