What motivation would a trusted entity like Bloomberg have to provide a feed for Counterparty? Are they significantly paid? If their feed get corrupted they could loose a lot of reputation.
In case another party replicates the Bloomberg feed and not Bloomberg itself can be held responsible for it, then a Counterparty user would have to trust the party that provides the feed and not Bloomberg. Could Bloomberg sign its feed which then would be provable within Counterparty so that Bloomberg would not have to broadcast it itself?
Feed operators can charge for the service. Bloomberg already makes a lot of money, but the cost of publishing a feed is also effectively zero.
Yes, Bloomberg could sign its feed, and that could be reproduced trustlessly and for free.
I think we boiled it down to a common understanding.