[nradov]

The whole idea of "shares" is a pointless legacy concept. What really matters is the fraction of the company you own. Back when trading was conducted using physical paper stock certificates it made sense to have discrete individual shares but the concept has now outlived its usefulness. In the future it would make more sense to just say, for example, that you can invest $12345.67 to purchase 0.0000000058% of company XYZ.

[valdiorn]

you are very wrong on this. Shares still matter very much, for reasons of legal ownership (each share has a value assigned to it, and can be sold as a discrete entity, a fraction of something does not), voting and share priority rules (who gets paid first in the event of bankruptcy) and when dealing with dilution, new issue and stock splits.

The entire legal system around equity investment is built around these concepts, and while you might take a different approach to the whole thing if you could "do a full re-write of the codebase", that's not really how laws work. There's also the fact that the same or very similar rules are applied worldwide, allowing like-for-like laws to apply cross borders. A Chinese share can be described by US laws. Do you know how hard it would be to toss all that global legal framework out and replace it with something else?

And you've not really explained why you think your system is better, either. I'd say the discrete units of shares that make ownership laws simpler are worth the hassle, on their own.