A most excellent example of a BSIP cm, H U G E. thanks for investing the time to start thinking this through.
I fully agree that the loss of the interest on BitUSD during BTSX days was indeed a major mistake of BTS 2.0 (which showed a disconnect with marketing to an audience). I endorse your efforts in bringing this back, and also think incentives for people NOT to hold funds on central exchanges is a step in the right direction, and blacklisting exchange accounts is an important element related to that.
While I believe explaining things in as simple a manor as possible is a worthy goal towards effective communication, I would not want a BSIP to eliminate important details to give the impression of simplicity when a deeper understanding is required. Comments to "explain it like I'm 5" are fine, but can also give a false impression that it's "easy" to achieve the stated goals. That can be misleading and skew the assessment of the costs to implement.
Simplifying a topic so 5 year olds can understand it could translate into a very limited understanding and open the door to manipulation by the lack of essential details.
I don't think it's reasonable to expect an true "understanding" if essential details are omitted. What constitutes essential depends entirely on the topic.
Clear communication is the goal, and decomposing a concept into the fundamental aspects and omitting non-essential aspects is what good engineering is all about. A good specification will do that and the structure of a BSIP is aimed at that.
Many people are adverse to thinking these days. That is one reason why so few have even attempted to write a BSIP. Again, major kudos to you cm for your willingness to work through the BSIP process.
Whilst I agree that we shouldn't dumb-down complex Bitshares documentation, I believe that attempting to write the document in an ELI5 friendly manner can improve the readability of the document, especially for users for whom English is not their first language.
I understand your point though that pushing the ELI5 approach could give the false impression that the proposed work is easier than it seems, best to inflate the cost and deadline for any work and overdeliver/overestimate rather than underdeliver/underestimate?
This could possibly be the case, and I invite all constructive criticism or theoretical attacks against proposed BSIPs so as to prevent manipulation being possible via the ommision of key requirements.
Semi-relevant: I have published my draft BSIP-020 which was split from the original BSIP-019 draft so as to separate the functionalities in scope.
Thanks for the comment, much appreciated and great input! :)