That is crazy - I look into it again tomorrow 🫡

Yes, I get it, and I can see your points. I can also see why what can be called oversimplification is necessary to get the message across to a wider audience. And, let's be honest, the topic of finance is quite simple: there are assets and instant settlement on the one hand, and there is credit, expectations, and trust on the other. If you and I make a bet today to be settled in the future, we can both still handle it. If one of us is then going to sell his expected earnings from the bet to another man who packages it into a product with a cool name and a good rating,g and if then, many years later, your own pension fund bundles that product into your package .... only then it becomes complicated, opaque, nobody's fault, nobody's responsibility. So in my humble view, the financial mess out there totally justifies simplification in selected spots. But I get your point :-) ... and The Gold Standard may not be a good birthday present for you :-)

This design is both clear and cost-effective, particularly regarding future maintenance costs.

For sure. Watergate now - under Trump - wouldn't make front page.