I don't know to what extent your argument is becoming more emotional than rational, because
Lol, it's always deflection with you. Emotional or rational, does the argument makes sense?
If you want the trust system to work properly, it needs to be verifiable. We're all here because of bitcoin, a verifiable and irrefutable medium for the transfer of wealth. People are going to make mistakes with a structure like that. Most of us are used to being coddled by our financial institutions, but it's not our job to prevent those mistakes. Some are going to learn the easy way, from the experiences of others. Some of us more stubborn and need to learn our lessons the harder way. You're not going to prevent all, nor a small fraction of that.
Sure, it's great to expose those who've proven themselves to be untrustworthy, but that's not likely to prevent someone from falling victim to their own greed anyway.
somebody who has bought account is shady. And in the last 5+ years this was made clear in many occasions.
I don't have the exact quote but at one point theymos said something to the affect of we would be surprised to learn how many high-ranking accounts have been purchased over the years. So, I'll have to disagree with that statement. The truth is there are many cases we'll never know if the member we're dealing with is the same one who created the account. If the account in question is only vying for a position on a signature campaign, and isn't attempting to gain the community's trust, what does it matter? The shady ones will be found out simply because they're up to shady shit. The rest of them may go on for ever and never be detected. Just because the majority of purchased accounts that are detected are up to shady shit, doesn't mean the majority of purchased accounts are up to shady shit.