One day after I wrote:

In my design I posit that phishing, theft, and (Sybil attack) sockpuppets will not be profitable. So there’s no need to enable any other form of punishment. The activity will not be worthwhile so it won’t exist.

Martin Armstrong wrote:

The government passed a law that if a family member was kidnapped, they froze the accounts of the family to prevent people from paying. At first, it seemed cruel. But once it was no longer profitable to kidnap people, it stopped.

Phishing will always pay because the end result is that you get someone's wallet and money.

We can attempt make wallets and procedures more “dummy proof”.

Are you proposing we should have downvoting or centralized control so we can penalize or recover stolen accounts? I disagree. The best way for people to learn not be fooled, is to be fooled a few times. And I don’t see how downvoting would help. The user who claims he was defrauded could be the one who is lying. You’re basically asking for a centralized system with a centralized administrator and strict identification procedures for all users. Sorry that is incompatible with decentralization and freedom.