This is a great compromise as well. Someone trying to correlate your museum specimens with observations you are currently posting on iNat can probably put two and two together.
I know that some will dismiss this as a purely hypothetical scenario. Well, about 1 hr ago I sent an email to a lep expert I know asking if he has started to post photos of his old specimens on iNat. I can see his name on some of the labels in the photos. But he may have traded specimens with someone else back in the day (this used to happen a lot - I’ve seen very similar labels on specimens in the National Collection). I thought he was on iNat, but I don’t recognize the username of the person posting these specimen photos. There is no “real” name in the user’s profile, but the first name included in the “made up” username is a match.
Why does it matter? Well, these observations are likely already in the database I manage (reported long ago by other means). I matched up one to confirm my suspicion (same species, date, location, collector). If I know for certain that all these specimens are from the same collector (including those where the labels are NOT legible in the iNat photos), I can safely match them up with what’s in our database and cross reference them all. This will corroborate the old records in our database (and allows me to correct any mistakes - data entry errors are not unusual in historical records).
It works the other way as well. A few months ago a different “old timer” started posting photos of his old specimens on iNat. In this case, he put his real name openly in his profile. Each time he posted a specimen of a rare/uncommon species, I checked the location/date against the records we already had in the database (again, reported by other means). In several cases, I was able to point out data entry errors he made when entering the observations on iNat (date and/or location).