I tried my best to read the entire discussion above. I didn’t see my particular concern addressed, but if it is, please point me to it.
Nearly all of the examples above reference what I would call “good tokens”: diplomas, certificates of attendance, licenses, etc. Things that people want to have. So, when an institution such as a university issues a diploma, I “want” that token attached to me, and I fully understand why everyone involved, the institution, I myself, and any person to whom I show the token does not want it to be transferable. I understand all of that, and there’s no need to explain.
My concern is when some institutions almost immediately come to understand that they can issue un-desirable tokens into a person’s wallet without asking that person.
For example, the fact that I belong to “The Group Opposed to the Government” who speaks out loudly against the institution. I, as the recipient, am left with nearly no recourses in this case. I can either (a) get a new wallet – very undesirable as it contains other tokens that I want – my diploma for example, (b) revoke (i.e. burn) the token which doesn’t really solve the problem as the existence of the token in my wallet’s history remains and the institution can choose to ignore the revocation, or (c) keep the token in my wallet and hope that being part of “The Group Opposed to the Government” doesn’t some day become a capital offense.
In its rush of excitement, the above proposal seems to ignore the obvious and foreseeable downside of institutions being able to send a “tag of ill repute” to an unlucky recipient that cannot be wiped clean.
So as to not allow you to underestimate the importance of this issue, I ask you to read and comment on this piece I wrote a few years ago. I think this issue is literally a matter of life and death.
I would appreciate your conscientious response.