I considered this a few months ago, but it's a bad idea for a few reasons. One is that it increases the load on archive.org. (There are a significant number of bots, and adding 30 million new links for them to spider is no small thing.)

The more important reason is that it's hard to do programmatically. For every link, you'd want to link to the most recent, active archive entry. As far as I know, this isn't easy to determine.

Have you ever had the experience of going to archive.org, plugging in a url, and seeing that the most recent one is actually dead, but then you can go back in time and find what you're after?

It's easy to say "Well, that's ok. Take me to the dead link, and I'll go back myself." Maybe. But with Dan's exacting standards, I somehow don't think that'll pass muster.

The ultimate reason this probably won't happen, though, is because people can do it themselves. It's not hard to copy the link and visit archive.org. Every other link (past, flag, hide, favorite) is there because it's hard to do.

EDIT: On the other hand, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30384630 shows a way it could be done. I didn't know about the date wildcard feature.