The Path of Trust in Web3: From Code's Immutability to Infinite Repeated Games

In the world of Web3, we often think that "immutability" is the ultimate guarantee of trust. However, this is actually just the starting point of building trust.

For assets on the blockchain, the immutability of the ledger is indeed sufficient to establish basic trust. For example, the total supply cap of 21 million for Bitcoin, or the balance of an ERC20 token, the ownership of an NFT, the completion status of cross-chain transfers, etc., as long as they are recorded on the chain, they are already trustworthy and do not require reliance on human factors.

However, for participants in the Web3 ecosystem, an immutable ledger is just a basic function. What is truly convincing is not only that it "cannot be changed", but more importantly that it "cannot leave" and "is unwilling to leave".

The essence of trust in Web3 does not merely exist in consensus mechanisms or node networks, but is gradually established through repeated transactions among participants. Trust is a product of repeated games and an accessory under high default costs. It is not a "consensus" that arises out of thin air, but rather an understanding that naturally accumulates in the circulation of funds and performance guarantees.

In the traditional financial world, the real "layer of trust" is not only built on blood ties, geography, and personal relationships, but also established and constructed through repeated transactions. The underlying structure of financial credit is not just a ledger, but the tacit understanding formed after countless games. Just like peace, trust only exists within a range where mutual checks and balances can be maintained.

Some traditional finance circles may have understood earlier than the current crypto world: understanding the background of the other party (KYC/KYB) is just the beginning. True trust does not exist in decentralized nodes, nor is it cultivated; rather, it is gradually built through repeated performance and breach of contract transactions.

High-frequency Repeated Games and Inter-regional Mutual Protection Networks

The core of the traditional underground financial network is a trust system built on high-frequency, long-term trading accumulation. Its coverage is not limited to local areas but extends to relevant communities around the world.

The success of this cross-regional financial collaboration relies on two core structures: high-density repeated games and cross-regional mutual guarantee networks.

A businessman operating overseas has long been transferring funds to domestic family members or partners through informal channels. Over time, he will form long-term repeated trading behaviors with the intermediaries and agents involved. This structure is not a one-time occurrence; it is based on the expectation that "I dare to give you 1 million because I know you will come back to me for another 1 million next year."

These trading networks do not rely entirely on formal contracts, but rather on a trust-locking structure: family reputation, word-of-mouth transmission, and mutual guarantee mechanisms, which enable "remote performance" to be achieved even across great distances.

Cost of Default: The Settlement System in Informal Order

In this system, trust is not an inherent virtue, but rather the result of rational choice. It is precisely because the cost of default is too high that participants "dare not default."

If a transaction defaults, it will not only lead to the parties involved losing their local credibility, but it will also quickly spread through family networks, hometown relationships, and clan communities, forming an irreversible social "clearing" mechanism. Although this mechanism does not go through formal legal channels, it is enough to make the defaulter "struggle to establish themselves overseas."

This is an alternative system to "informal sanctions." While it is not official, it is often more efficient and more deterrent than official channels.

In this system, you may not fully trust the contract, but you will certainly value the collective sanctions of the entire community.

Multilateral Clearing Network of Funds: Intangible Transaction Locking Structure

Another core mechanism of traditional informal financial networks is the multilateral clearing network for funds.

Different financial intermediaries do not operate in isolation, but to some extent act as "channels" and "hedges" for each other.

It is like a naturally formed "layer two network" that constructs a highly elastic yet strongly transaction-locked structure through the flow of funds between different nodes:

• Funds circulate among multiple points, creating an intertwining of personal relationships and interests;

• Behind every transaction is a community debt structure of "If I get into trouble, you will too."

This system is more flexible and robust than any on-chain bridging protocol we understand today, even though it has no lines of code.

The immutability of code is just the beginning; long-term participation and continuous competition are the core.

In Web3, we often regard "immutable code" as the ultimate trust, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.

For the assets themselves, an immutable ledger is indeed sufficient. However, trust in a participant or a protocol requires a higher-dimensional logic and threshold.

We should not only ask: "Does this protocol have vulnerabilities?" but rather ask: "Is this protocol bold enough to be bound to the ecosystem in the long term?" and continually contribute and flow within this ecosystem.

Locking assets is a form of "self-collateralization" in economic games; the ve(3,3) mechanism is a game commitment to prove to the community that "I will not withdraw easily, I am willing to participate in the long term."

• Locking assets with each other to establish a stable foundation of mutual trust;

• Only by daring to engage in repeated games can one prove that they will not be untrustworthy.

• Willing to keep funds circulating in the ecosystem for a long time and not exit easily.

It is important to note that the locked assets mentioned here not only refer to the tokens allocated to the project party in the protocol but may also include the funds raised from public and private placements, the protocol's income, and even the personal assets of the project's founders.

But it should be understood that "locking up assets" is just the beginning, merely a commitment to enter the entire ecosystem as a "token of allegiance." More importantly, it is the subsequent repeated games — whether one is willing to keep value in the ecosystem for the long term.

A DeFi protocol that truly earns trust is not about whether it is open source, but whether it systematically limits its own exit rights and continuously circulates assets within the ecosystem—daring to engage in long-term repeated games is the cornerstone of trust.

In short, an immutable smart contract is far less trustworthy than a participant who is unwilling to leave.

Trust Upgrade in Web3: It's Not Just Technology, But Game Design

The current Web3 field pursues high TPS, low Gas fees, modular settlement layers, decentralization, and other technical indicators. However, these alone cannot fully build trust in products, projects, and protocols.

Trust is not just a technical indicator; it is also a structure of a long-term game relationship.

Traditional informal financial networks tell us: the most reliable relationships are not the rules written in contracts, but the structures embedded in the costs of default.

Just like the social settlement systems in traditional networks, DeFi should also be designed in such a way that once you exit, you not only lose your reputation but also face the settlement of multilateral financial relationships—locking mechanisms, voting rights, and governance rights binding are the on-chain translations of these "informal settlement mechanisms".

We should build an environment that allows protocols/participants to dare to engage in infinite repeated games.

Remember, the consensus mechanism is just a surface protocol; lock-up and repeated games are the deeper alliances.

A true "insider" is not defined by verbal commitments, but by the risks you share with your allies through time, money, and credibility.

Conclusion: The Future of Trust Comes from Alliances that are Hard to Exit

"Insiders" is not just an emotional slogan, but the most deterrent system: if you exit, I also suffer.

The "difficult-to-exit" and "willing to continuously invest and settle" nature of this system is the ultimate trust structure that Web3 should pursue.

Technology can create ledgers; systems can establish order; but only games can truly build trust.

The best trust is not based on "belief", but on something you cannot help but trust.

This reminds me of the classic song "Only Those Who Work Hard Will Win". In the Web3 world, it might be adapted to "Only Those Who Dare to Gamble Will Win"—only by daring to continuously gamble can one earn true trust.

Success is 30% luck and 70% effort. Only by daring to participate can one win the future.

Becoming a part of the Web3 ecosystem requires not only technology, but also courage and commitment.