Trust level of Proof-of-orphan-mining

I'm trying to gauge the public level of reception if we had proof-of-orphan-mining available.

POOM is an idea where BiblePay starts an additional website called orphanstats.com.  This sites sole purpose would be to gather statistics on private orphan sponsorships (IE normal home users who sponsor personal children at compassion.com).  Then, we would program a custom BiblePay API to allow the sanctuaries to query (from orphanstats.com) - the orphan statistics (such as the Orphan ID list per User ID, the monthly commitment amount per User etc).  Using this info, BiblePay Core could potentially reward users out of the PODC budget for monthly sponsorships, expanding biblepay and saving net electricity.

However, the primary downside to this is that the orphanstats.com method of harvesting the child information per user would be logging in to your private compassion.com account with a long key (a keypair created by orphanstats), then orphanstats would scan the list of orphan IDs once per night and save the info per User ID and log out (programatically).  Although we would publically promise to not scan any other information than the numeric orphan ID of each child and then log out, obviously this system requires trust.

So please tell us your opinion:  If you trust that we would not look at any other info, vote Yes, If you would like to see this system in prod.

If you would only allow this type of scan if you created a new compassion account using "BiblePay Branch Office", a PO BOX, and a blank phone number, vote the corresponding option.

Another option is if we had two database administrators - verifying the data collected includes no other fields; if you feel safe in that case, please vote that way.

Otherwise please tell us this is a bad idea by voting No.

I'm voting for the API ...

Personally, I'd rather pay for another orphan than for a PO box.

I am still reading up on the history of BBP to get caught up on everything you guys have done since inception.  Though I am not a polling expert, I have done a little work with polling and my focus was centered on analysis.  With the current question, the focus seems to be a measure of trust which is important, but not everything.  There may be several non-trust related issues that would lead me to not support the idea, but the only options that fall under no is me saying I don't trust you.  My suggestion would be to include a no for other reasons category.

Please also note that the question is actually two or three questions and limiting the question would help with clarity.  In other words, the first question is Would you support POOM? (yes or no) The second question is What is my level of trust with the BBP system? (Likert scale)  The unstated (but implied) question is Should the valuable developer effort be dedicated to developing this or something else? (POOM or something else)

You guys have done an amazing job so far, so please don't think this is a critique.  My goal is to help you get answers that are closer to how people actually feel and get more actionable feedback.

@way2: I agree. I voted "I would not trust BiblePay" just because there is no other "No" option, for example "I don't like the idea".

It's because Rob wants Yes answers, so he skews the offered answers so that you must feel bad if you select "I would not trust BiblePay", or simply because nobody actually feels that way, so the thinking was that surely nobody would select that option. But I selected it intentionally, because I don't like poll manipulation.

i voted for api, in my opinion there should be some report from their side which shows who sponsors who and so. i dont know how it works but it may work this way:
i create account, set my info and somewhere into column 'other info' i set for example my bbp wallet address or so with keyword 'biblepay'
then they create report every day with accounts which contain keywork biblepay and we get list of bbp addresses for payments, maybe + some other info if needed

Thanks for the feedback guys, I added a second no option.

@way2: I agree. I voted "I would not trust BiblePay" just because there is no other "No" option, for example "I don't like the idea".

It's because Rob wants Yes answers, so he skews the offered answers so that you must feel bad if you select "I would not trust BiblePay", or simply because nobody actually feels that way, so the thinking was that surely nobody would select that option. But I selected it intentionally, because I don't like poll manipulation.

No thats not true - I was thinking one who doesnt like the idea wouldnt vote - the answers were based on the concept only.

Please stop making assumptions - you have a very mean spirited attitude Inblue.

I agree with Way, we should also have had an extra option.  I also agree with the way he explained the problem.