Here's a more substantive criticism. Todd envisages a system in which every transaction between any two participants is recorded. Yes, this is a good model of the economy, but that's not what accounting is about. Accounting is about each node in the network keeping track of its own transactions. What Todd wants to be is a National Accounts office that not only takes the bottom line from each node and charges them a tax, but actually keeps track of all the activity in the entire economy.

Now for a detail that hit me right off the bat:

Abolish the

(Assets) = (Liabilities)   + (Owner's Equity)

equation (ALOE)

Well, according to Wikipedia,

Double-entry bookkeeping is governed by the accounting equation. At any point in time, the following (basic) equation must be true:

assets = liabilities + equity

This can be further expanded and the (extended) equation becomes:

assets = liabilities + equity + (revenue − expenses)

or

assets = liabilities + (capital − drawings) + (revenue − expenses)

A = L + C − D + R − E

Finally, the equation may be rearranged algebraically as follows:

A + E + D = L + R + C

This equation must be true, for any time period. If it is, then the accounts are said to be in balance. If the accounts are not in balance, an error has occurred.

I don't see what's wrong with that, other than the imperative

your mission, should you wish to accept it, is to maximize shareholder equity

which is not actually part of double-entry accounting but of economic theory.

Abolishing double-entry accounting because of the destructive effects of shareholder equity maximisation is like abolishing stoichiometry by blaming it for chemical warfare.

Oye, vatos, dees English sink todos mi ships, chinga sus madres, so escuche: el fleet es ahora refloated, OK? — The War Nerd