The Trust Path in the Web3 World: From Code Immutability to Infinite Repeated Games

In the world of Web3, many people believe that "immutability" is the ultimate guarantee of trust. However, this is just the starting point for building trust, not the endpoint.

For digital assets, the immutability of blockchain indeed provides a fundamental level of trust. The fact that the total supply of Bitcoin is fixed at 21 million establishes a foundation of confidence for the entire blockchain ecosystem. Similarly, as long as ERC20 token balances, NFT ownership, and cross-chain transfers are recorded on the chain, they possess sufficient credibility without relying on human or emotional factors.

However, for business participants, financial institutions, protocol developers, and project teams, an immutable ledger is merely a basic function and a threshold for entering this field. What truly inspires trust is not just that it is "unchangeable," but more importantly, that it is "irrevocable" and "unwilling to leave."

The trust in Web3 is not just present in consensus mechanisms or nodes, but is embedded in every transaction between the various participants. Trust is built through the accumulation of transactions.

Trust is the product of repeated games and an accessory to high default costs. It is not a "consensus" that arises out of thin air, but rather an understanding that naturally settles through repeated capital turnover and performance guarantees.

In some traditional business communities, the real "layer of trust" is not only built on kinship, geography, and personal relationships, but is also established and reinforced through repeated business interactions. The underlying structure of financial credit is not merely a ledger, nor is it simply a network of acquaintances; it is a tacit understanding formed after multiple games of negotiation. Trust, like peace, can only exist within the bounds of mutual checks and balances.

These traditional business communities may have recognized earlier than Wall Street that understanding each other's background (KYC/KYB) is just the beginning: true trust does not reside in decentralized nodes, nor is it cultivated; it is gradually built through transactions of defaults and compliance.

Repeated Games and Cross-Regional Guarantee Networks

In certain regions, the underground financial network is essentially a trust network built on high-frequency, long-term transactions. Its clientele is not limited to local customers but spans a wide immigrant community from Southeast Asia to North America.

This cross-regional financial collaboration relies on a core structure: high-density repeated games + cross-regional mutual guarantee network.

A businessman operating overseas has been transferring funds to his domestic family or partners through informal channels for a long time. Over time, he will form long-term repeated transactions with the financial intermediaries and agents in between. This structure is not one-off; it is built 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 on formal contracts, but rather on trust-based locking structures: family reputation, word-of-mouth transmission, and mutual guarantee mechanisms, which allow for "remote performance" to be achieved even across thousands of miles.

Default Cost: Clearing System in Informal Order

In this system, trust is not an innate virtue, but the result of rationality. It is the high cost of default that makes people "dare not default".

If a certain transaction defaults, it will not only damage local reputation but will also spread rapidly through family networks, hometown relationships, and clan communities, forming an irreversible social "clearing" mechanism. It does not go through the courts, but it is enough to make a person "unable to stand abroad."

This is an alternative system of "non-legal sanctions". It is not official, yet it is more efficient and more deterrent than the official one.

You may not believe in contracts, but you cannot disbelieve the ban order from an entire clan association.

Multilateral Settlement Network of Funds: Intangible Transaction Locking Structure

Another core mechanism of this informal financial network is the multilateral settlement network of funds.

Different financial intermediaries do not operate in isolation; to some extent, they act as each other's "channels" and "hedges."

This is like a naturally formed "Layer 2", building a highly elastic yet strongly transaction-locked structure through the flow of funds between different nodes:

• Funds circulate among multiple points, forming an intertwining of human relationships and interests;

• Behind every transaction is a "If I have an accident, you will too" community debt structure.

This system is more flexible and resilient 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; the core lies in "not leaving" after locking assets and daring to continue the game.

In Web3, we often treat "immutable code" as the ultimate trust, but this is just the tip of the iceberg.

For the asset itself, an immutable ledger is sufficient to prevent tampering or deception. However, trust in a merchant or an agreement involves a higher-dimensional logic and threshold.

We should not ask: "Does this protocol have vulnerabilities?" Instead, we should ask: "Is this protocol willing to bind with me for 4 years?" and continue to contribute and flow within this ecosystem.

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

• You lock up assets, I also lock up assets, and only by locking each other can we form a stable mutual trust;

• If you dare to gamble repeatedly, only then will I believe you won't betray me------the keyword is "dare";

• Are you brave enough to keep all your funds circulating in this ecosystem, not leaving?

Note: The locked assets mentioned here refer not only to the tokens allocated to the project party in the agreement but can also include the funds raised from public/private offerings, protocol income, and even the personal funds of the project founders. You/I refers to the participants in the business and between agreements.

But don't get me wrong, "locking assets" is just the beginning, merely a commitment to enter the entire ecosystem's "testament." The important thing is the subsequent repeated game ------ whether one dares to keep the value within the ecosystem.

A DeFi protocol that truly earns trust is not about being open source, but rather about whether it institutionally restricts its right to exit and continuously circulates assets within the ecosystem------ Daring to engage in long-term repeated games is the foundation of trust.

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

The Misguided Goals We've Pursued Over the Years - The Trust Upgrade of Web3 is not just a module, but a game design.

Today's Web3 pursues high TPS, low Gas, modular settlement layers, decentralization, and so on. However, these alone cannot build trust in products, projects, and protocols.

Trust is not a technical indicator, but 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 of these networks, DeFi should also be designed as follows: if you run away, not only will your reputation be zeroed out, but you will also be settled by multilateral financial relationships------the locking mechanism, voting rights, and governance rights binding are the "informal settlement mechanisms" translated on-chain.

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

Remember, consensus mechanisms are just the protocols on the tip of the iceberg; locking assets and repeated games are the alliances beneath the surface.

"Insiders" are not defined by what you say, but by the time, money, and credibility you invest with your allies, diving into the abyss together.

Epilogue: The Future of Trust, Born from an Unbreakable Alliance

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

This systemic "inability to exit" and the ability to "dare to continuously invest and settle" is the ultimate trust structure that Web3 should pursue.

Technology creates ledgers; systems create order; but only games can create trust.

And the best trust is not based on "faith", but on something you cannot help but believe.

It is very similar to the classic song "Only by Striving Can You Win."

Three parts are determined by fate, while seven parts rely on hard work.

Love "Bo" (Chess) to win

Become a part of this ecosystem