I'm not really sure what would constitute a satisfactory result in this case. The idea has been expressed and reiterated and some have agreed in its merit. The current state of affairs has been explained ad nauseam. And now we have what we might call in logic, a "call to questionable authority" -- viz. whereswilly. A word to the wise... suggesting that ANYthing about that site is superior to this site is NOT the way you want to go about effecting change here. :)

I guess I am just curious about the need or motivation for the proposed change. Our stated goal here is to track the flow of money. It seems the current rules allow us to do that quite efficiently. I, like many others, have encountered the so called "boomerang" notes. I can easily check to see when I entered that note and how long it has been in circulation and even what comments I made. I would call that note "tracked". I am satisfied. Any other way of dealing with this just invites misuse. Exactly what significant advantage is it to include "boomerangs"?

You say that the other site, in extremis, will allow entry of "boomerangs". I am certain that, in the past, that has been the case here. The current stewardship of this site likely precludes that practice. That's just the way it is.