@mvha (#162 & to some degree #161)
First of all thank you for an interesting dedicated answer. I appreciate it, even if I don't share at least some of your arguments.
I answer now without reading the couple of links you have sent me. I will look through them, particularly those that are not in Dutch (I hope however I will understand some written Dutch through German and English - with spoken one I know it is far more difficult :D).
To make it clear - I do not distinguish titled and untitled players as for anonimity. I think generally it is wrong to all players to hide their identity in any official tournament. Even if there are some personal gains (by the way unjust to those who don't use anonimity like e.g.
@RealDavidNavara ), this situation has obvious drawbacks to the community. Lichess is losing the chance of publish names of strong players names using it (some even heavily, if it is true as someone above mentioned about playing 10k games yearly here), and on lower levels lurking in anonimity gives paradise for all cheaters. And being a titled, so professional or at least semiprofessional player, you perfectly know it is a worldwide growing problem in chess.
The argument about "many companies demand of their employees/ cocontractors to sign exclusivity contracts" is actually against many arguments of your fellow supporters of the anonimity idea. You know, it means simply that anonimity is breaking signed the agreements with
chess.com, and also working against the interest of the community of lichess. If someone (not you) is writing about spirit of freedom, so that he could hide his name here, and publish it on
chess.com, it means a kind of greed and egoism, that is in some languages described as "to eat your cake, and to have your cake simultaneously". Such a player want to keep money from
chess.com (maybe even cheating them, but without doing it under own name, so they don't care), and wants to use all the opportunities given by
lichess.org (both by the webpage itself, as well its community), but without giving anything from himself. Obvious freeloading...
Last but not least - it is obviously immoral, and harmful for chess community - the existence of contracts in that players agree to not to play in some places, real or virtual, because of colaborating with someone. It is definitely not the situation similar to labour contract.
Chess.com is a platform for playing, like is lichess. Imagine, the Belgian federation would give some scholarship to best Belgian players and would not allow them to play in tournaments organized in Netherlands, Germany, or Poland. Or - if you feel Belgian federation is not comparable in strength to
chess.com, let it be European chess federation with all national member chess federations. You could play in Brussels, but not in Abu Dhabi or Washington, DC.
It is crazy.
I understand
chess.com would disagree to such players to do works for lichess - being admins here, providing lessons, simultans, or broadcasting channels. That is a kind of work done for the competing platform. But playing?
Maybe
chess.com supported players should have a mark about that here in lichess (that actually would be even more transparent!) so that
chess.com needs are satisfied too, but they should appear here under their actual name, if they like playing here, and are using lichess resources - human and material.