Maybe $1000 is reasonable amount both for me and GOOG. BTW they might just not to give you anything anyway, for example if some algo considers you a terrorist who is strictly forbidden to be funded.
$1,000 is their daily budget for M&Ms. You need to go a few orders of magnitude larger.
Across the entire user base is a few orders of magnitude larger.
But they'd never block the entire user base, right? So it's only about a few one offs. M&M money, no?
0.5% of the entire userbase (which might be a fair estimate of their false-positive ratio) is a sizeable number.
It's not so much that they would be desperate to keep the $x; but rather "has had $x posted for Y years" is a strong signal the account warrants careful human review for any flagged issue.
Surely any actual nefarious user would see that $x as a small cost of doing business...
Why do you think that? What kind of nefarious use makes a hundred bucks or more per account and is subtle enough for the ban review to let them keep doing it?
There is no cost to a bad actor in the OP's proposal. If/when the account gets terminated, the money is returned to them. This policy would be worse than useless. No real users would sign up for it, only abusers.
Well the bond will be meaningless if it was only put there yesterday. If it's been there for a while that's a real cost. But true, it's not the full amount unless they do something that makes them owe Google money.
For bad actors, an extra careful review is still going to result in account termination. So, for them, the bonds buy virtually no protection, but it does tie up real money. How many bad actors are going to prefer to loan Google $100 per active account rather than $0 per active account?