Transparency is often deemed as ultimate goal. It is expected by voters from their governments, by employees from their employers, sometimes even from the customers. In software, building in the open is considered a fast way to innovation, delivering better product and higher security - "given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow".
Yet many people don't talk about disadvantages. Anonymity and privacy often increase personal security. And open governance often means that the visible parts are justifiable, but that does not mean they are good. Forced transparency in corporate structures, like publishing ultimate beneficiary owners means that privacy is more expensive.
Yet there is a reason for voting privacy in democracies, which we should think about in other governance structures, down to a level of companies. Anonymity removes status and politics. Building in private can help keep the edge. Not being open to outgroup allow parallel societies such as dark forests to function.
