Major brainstorm, @oetyng @bochaco and others will shoot me here 
There is a possibility here. We don’t do this and it’s a quick thought. So the current thinking is DBC. There is a DbcSpent packet on the network that is network signed, now owner so no identity leak.
That packet looks like this (simplified for a single input)
struct DbcSpent {
input: DbcHash>
outputs: Vec<DbcHash>
}
So we get a Dbc we check the parent hash exists (the address of the above packet is the input Dbc hash which is the parent of any output dbc). If this exists AND the Dbc we are given exists in the output hashes AND there is not a DbcSpent for the Dbc we are given then it’s valid.
So quite simple really.
However @bochaco suggested we may need to add amounts to this, giving us
struct DbcSpent {
input: (DbcHash, amount)
outputs: Vec<(DbcHash, amount)>
}
This means the Dbc genesis would have all SNT. As they are distributed to sections, MAID holders, shareholders, developers, core devs, farmers etc. we can “track” the amounts but not who to (no way to know the recipients). This gives us
The ability to know the total supply and ensure no more minted (as the network grows this is almost impossible anyway, unless a section is compromised).
At what cost?
Finding this out is a big task and will require getting a ton of packets, but that is probably OK for Audit purposes.
Any other good points about it?
It can allow us to see even compromised sections can do no more than mint the whole section wallet (not unlimited coins). So that is interesting.
There is a lot more like potential one way chain swaps (with a Dbc able to hold optional data) that we can do here. It’s a sleek new tool that I hope will open up many doors and really allow incredible secure, safe and anonymous (if required*) asset transfer capability, starting with digital (and digital).
*I say if required as you can keep the Dbc you mint for somebody as proof it existed and keeping your parent Dbc (it’s signed by you), then you can have proof of payment if required. Sounds scary, well not really the somebody is a key, that’s all whether they disclose their real identity linked to the key cryptographically then there is still no identity leak.
perhaps it’s done by design, I haven’t delved to that depth.