The Road to Trust in the Web3 World: From Immutability to Infinite Games

In the world of Web3, we often think that "immutability" is the ultimate means of establishing trust. However, this is actually just a beginner-level threshold.

For the assets themselves, the immutability of the ledger is indeed sufficient. The limited supply of 21 million Bitcoins has built the cornerstone of confidence in the blockchain world. The balance of an ERC20 token, the ownership of an NFT, and the completion of a cross-chain transfer are all sufficiently credible as long as they are recorded on the chain, without the need to rely on human factors or emotional fluctuations.

However, for protocols and project parties, an immutable ledger is just a basic function, a threshold. What truly inspires trust is not that it "cannot be changed," but that it "will not leave" and also "does not want to leave."

The path of trust in Web3 lies not in consensus mechanisms or nodes, but in the continuous transactions among all parties. 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 a tacit understanding that is naturally sedimented through repeated capital turnover and guarantee performance.

On the land of Chaoshan, the real "layer of trust" is not only woven from kinship, geography, and human feelings, but also established and built through repeated encounters. The underlying structure of financial credit is not a ledger, nor is it just the phrase "our own people", but rather the tacit understanding formed after countless games. Trust, like peace, only exists within the range of mutual checks and balances.

Chaoshan may have understood earlier than Wall Street that understanding each other's background ( KYC/KYB ) is just the beginning: true trust does not exist in decentralized nodes, nor is it cultivated, but is accumulated through transactions of defaults and compliance.

1. High-Frequency Repetitive Games and Inter-Regional Mutual Protection

The essence of the underground money houses in Chaoshan is a trust network built on high-frequency, long-term trading. Its customer base is not limited to the local area, but covers the Chaoshan immigrant communities from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur, and from Singapore to California.

The establishment of this cross-regional financial collaboration relies on a core structure: high-frequency repeated games + cross-regional mutual guarantee network.

A潮商 operating overseas has long been transferring funds to domestic family members or partners through money exchanges. Over time, he establishes a long-term, repetitive trading relationship with the money exchange and agents involved. This structure is not one-time; it is based on the expectation that "I dare to give you 1 million because I know you will come back to exchange another 1 million with me next year."

These trading networks do not rely on contracts, but on a trust-based locking structure: family reputation, word-of-mouth inheritance, and mutual guarantee mechanisms, allowing for "remote performance" even across thousands of miles.

II. Cost of Breach: Clearing Systems in Informal Orders

In this system, trust is not an inherent virtue, but rather a result of reason. It is precisely because the cost of default is high that people "dare not default."

If a transaction defaults, it will not only lead to a damaged local reputation, but it will also rapidly transmit through family networks, local ties, and clan communities, forming an irreversible social "clearing" mechanism. This mechanism does not go through the courts, but it is enough to make one "unable to stand abroad."

This is an alternative system of "non-legal sanctions". It is unofficial, yet more efficient and more deterrent than the official one.

You may not believe in the contract, but you cannot ignore the ban imposed by the entire clan association.

III. The Multilateral Clearing Network for Funds: The Intangible Transaction Locking Structure

Another core mechanism of Chaozhou-Shantou money houses is the multi-party clearing network of funds.

Different money houses do not operate in isolation, but to a certain extent, they serve as each other's "channels" and "hedges."

This is like a naturally formed "layer two network" that builds a highly elastic yet strongly locked trading structure through the flow of funds between different nodes.

• Funds circulate among multiple points, forming an intertwining of relationships and interests;
• Behind every transaction is a community debt structure of "If something happens to me, something happens to you."

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

4. Code immutability is just the beginning; locking funds with a "stay put" mentality and daring to continue the game is what makes you an "insider".

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

For the assets themselves, it is sufficient that the ledger is immutable and honest. However, trust in a project party or a protocol 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 funds is a form of "self-collateralization" in economic games; ve(3,3), is a game commitment to prove to the community "I will not run away, I am willing to participate in the long term."

• You lock up funds, I also lock up funds, and we lock each other in order to establish stable mutual trust;
• If you dare to gamble repeatedly, then I will believe you won't betray me ------ the keyword is "dare";
• Are you brave enough to keep all your funds circulating in this ecosystem without leaving?

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

But don't get me wrong, "locking funds" is just the beginning, it's merely a commitment to enter the whole ecosystem's "letter of engagement". The important thing is the subsequent repeated games ------ whether one dares to keep the value within the ecosystem.

A DeFi protocol that truly earns trust does not depend on whether it is open source, but on whether it systematically limits its own exit rights and continuously circulates assets within the ecosystem------ Having the courage to engage in long-term multiple games is the cornerstone of trust.

In other words, a tamper-proof smart contract is far less trustworthy than an opponent who is unwilling to leave.

5. These Years We Have Chased the Wrong Goals - The Trust Upgrade of Web3 is Not Just a Module, but a Game Design

The current Web3 seeks high TPS, low Gas fees, a modular settlement layer, decentralization, and so on. However, these do not build trust in products, projects, or protocols.

Trust is not a technical indicator, but rather a structure of a long-term game relationship.

The money shop in Chaoshan tells us: the most reliable relationship is not the rules written in the contract, but the structure written in the cost of breach.

Just like the social settlement system of a money house, 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 mechanisms for locking funds, binding voting rights, and governance rights are the on-chain translations of these "informal settlement mechanisms."

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

Remember, the consensus mechanism is just the tip of the iceberg; locking funds and repeated games are the alliances beneath the surface.

"Insider", not because you say so, but because you share risks with your allies using your time, money, and credibility.

VI. Conclusion: The Future of Trust Comes from an Indispensable Alliance

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

This systemic "irreversibility" and the willingness to continue investing and accumulating is the ultimate trust structure that Web3 should pursue.

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

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

As that classic song "Only by Striving Can We Win" sings.

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

Love "Bo" ( chess ) will win

Become a member of the Chaoshan family

Postscript

In order to enhance the readability of the article, this article mainly focuses on the discussion of "repeated games." In the absence of understanding the background of the other party and with high costs of default, having participants (, especially merchants ), forcibly enter the environment of repeated games is also a kind of local optimal solution.