i already have this with my IRL set and it's much nicer than all the finnicky errata around "would gain"
What do you mean by you already have this? Do you mean that you've been just choosing to play it that way?
i sleeve because i print fan cards and ive made a couple quality of life improvements to the canon cards - updating BoM/Inheritance/etc post errata, rewording Trader to this (nearly identical, fewer commas in mine tho), making Lost In The Woods an artifact (so as to further codify things you fight over as Artifacts, and more strongly define states as a thing that a player gets), adding Coppersmith back into Intrigue.
So yeah, i already have this. or, i'm choosing to play it this way, i guess, but also i dont have to explain to others that "we're choosing to play it this way", they just get that thats how the card is worded.
I wouldn't expect most players to fully understand "exchange" so this may not be the best wording. For example, if the board has Guildhall + Trader and my opponent reveals trader, I'm sure I'd get in an argument with the guy when I tell him he doesn't get a coffer because he's gaining a treasure but technically he's not gaining a treasure because exchange is not gaining.
The OG trader had ruling issues, but they were rare to appear in an actual game and otherwise the card was straightforward. This new text has clearer rulings, but I'd expect it to confuse more players.
I mean, just explain to him at the beginning of the game that exchanging isn't gaining. The only issue here is mid-game rules explanations.