Offline order history is only a marginal improvement on the e-commerce experience from a customer and business perspective, so it's more appealing to us engineers who appreciate it as a feat of engineering prowess.

In other words, offline isn't PWAs killer feature. Besides, native apps can do it too.

PWA's killer features are circumventing the app store and the app store tax and not maintaining two codebases for Android and iOS.

Another Hacker News client would be a good example of a good PWA that you might install to your phone. It could have niceties like "save for later" or special styles applied to your favorite commenters. Offline support would be useful too, of course but not the main reason to develop a PWA.

Uncensored, paid content is another significant use case.

If we're talking about wealth not income, then no, not really. We don't usually think of asset seizure as "taxes". In other words, one "taxes" flows (like capital gains and wages) and "siezes" stocks (like bank deposits and equity).

"You seem to be positing that it's entirely expected and understandable"

I wasn't making value judgement, but yes, if you look at it with the assumption these wealthy individuals are cold, calculating, self-interested actors, then it's "expected and understandable" to me.

"That seems counterintuitive to me, at least."

I think you're using "intuitive" as a shorthand for "the way things ought to work in a righteous world", where I find incentives and disincentives to be a more intuitive way of understanding the world.

"wealthy individuals in well functioning systems should commit fraud to the detriment of the system that brought them their wealth"

To be fair, it's not necessarily fraudulent to have offshore accounts or to conceal your identity (it can certainly be depending on the circumstances). Technically I have an "offshore" account, I just happen to be living outside the US and a US citizen. I also use mechanisms to conceal my identity when registering domain names, for example. Is it the same thing, no, but these people might not technically be doing anything illegal.

It isn't necessarily true that those systems "brought them their wealth" either. Plenty of them likely inherited wealth that was accumulated long before the current systems were put in place (granted, it could very well have been accumulated illegitimately 300 years ago).

(Again, I'm not saying any of this is how the world should work, I'm trying to look at the world dispassionately and describe how things seem to be)

At the level of wealth we're discussing, these individuals probably have to think about "diversifying" among nation-states. Instead of worrying about whether to short the tech sector, they're worried about a country being invaded and the new puppet regime deciding to nationalize the hydroelectric dam they financed. Or they may be worrying about whether their country of residence will pass a law that the biggest national telcom must sell the government a majority stake (i.e., their share) at a government-mandated price denominated in an inflating currency... with expert bureaucratic efficiency.

So... no, not really taxes.

Your post was implicitly invoking Occam's razor and so the premise of the question was about deciding which explanation to believe. I rejected that premise because it wasn't necessary to decide between the two explanations—they weren't mutually exclusive.

The only proof I had was that I've seen enough of these events resolve themselves very similarly to the way this one was resolved—which is why I was recommending a "wait and see" approach.

Call it wisdom or "lived experience".