Right, but the idea is that sensible people should want to willingly give up some of their privacy to participate in a transparent market. When you don't, and the crime is 10,000x harder (if not impossible by design) to solve (and more likely due to the moral hazard this brings), the sensibility of operating in a less private marketplace becomes apparent.

Typically the markets can afford to compensate people on a day-to-day basis for small crime, but the entire reason bizarre concepts like clearing houses exist is that, from time to time, once every 10-30 years, an entire market can be destroyed overnight because of liquidity or counter-party risk or a combination, or some other situation like fraud. These things happen, and will continue to happen, which is why we should always look to the past when designing markets, and not fall for the folks telling about the wonders of their utopian future.