The Foundation of the Web3 Trust System: Repeated Games and the Commitment of "Not Leaving"

In the Web3 world, the concept of "immutability" is often regarded as the cornerstone of ultimate trust. However, this is merely the entry-level threshold. For the assets themselves, an immutable ledger is indeed sufficient to establish trust - for example, the total supply cap of 21 million bitcoins lays the foundation of confidence in the blockchain world. The balance of an ERC20 token, the ownership of an NFT, and the completion of cross-chain transfers are all credible as long as they are recorded on the chain, without relying on human factors or emotional judgments.

However, for business entities, financial institutions, protocols, and project parties, an immutable ledger is merely a basic function. What truly inspires trust is not just that it "cannot be changed", but more importantly, that it "cannot leave" and "is unwilling to leave".

The path of trust in Web3 does not merely exist in consensus mechanisms or nodes, but is embedded in every transaction between parties. Trust is accumulated through transactions. It is a product of repeated games and an adjunct of high default costs. Trust is not a "consensus" that arises out of thin air, but rather an understanding that naturally sedimented through repeated capital turnover and performance guarantees.

In certain traditional business cultures, the true "trust layer" is not only built on blood relations, geographical ties, and personal connections, but also established and strengthened through repeated transactions. The underlying structure of financial credit is not merely a ledger, and it is certainly not just the phrase "one of us", but rather the tacit understanding formed after countless games of strategy. Trust, like peace, only exists within a range where mutual checks and balances can be maintained.

These traditional business cultures may have understood it earlier than Wall Street. Understanding the background ( KYC/KYB ) is just the beginning: true trust does not exist in decentralized nodes, nor is it cultivated; it is accumulated through transactions that comply with or breach agreements.

High-Frequency Repeated Games and Cross-Regional Mutual Guarantee Networks

The essence of certain traditional underground financial networks is based on a trust network accumulated through high-frequency, long-term transactions. Its clients are not limited to local ones but cover commercial communities across multiple countries and regions.

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

A businessman operating overseas has been transferring funds to his family or partners in the country through informal channels for a long time. Over time, he will form long-term repeated transactions with the intermediary financial institutions and agents. This structure is not a one-time occurrence; it is based on the expectation of "I dare to give you 1 million because I know you'll come back to me for another 1 million next year."

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

Default Costs: Clearing Systems in Informal Orders

In this system, trust is not an inherent virtue, but a result of rationality. The high cost of breach of contract makes people "dare not breach the contract".

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

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

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

Multilateral Settlement Network for Funds: Intangible Transaction Locking Structure

Another core mechanism is the multilateral settlement network for funds.

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

It's like a naturally formed "Layer 2" 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 "If something happens to me, something will happen to you" 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 "not leaving" after locking up and the courage to continue the game is what makes us "one of our own".

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 that doesn't lie is sufficient. However, trust in a merchant or a protocol has a higher-dimensional logic and threshold.

We should not ask: "Does this protocol have any 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 up assets is a form of "self-collateralization" in economic games; ve(3,3), is a game commitment to prove to the community that "I won't run away, I am willing to play for the long term."

• You lock up your assets, I lock up mine, we need to lock each other to establish stable mutual trust;
• If you dare to gamble repeatedly, then I will believe you won't backstab------the key word is "dare";
• Do you dare to keep all your funds circulating in this ecosystem without leaving?

Note: The lock-up referred to here includes not only the tokens allocated to the project party in the agreement but also the funds raised from public/private offerings, the income from the agreement, and even the personal funds of the project's founder. You/I refers to between merchants, between agreements.

But don't get me wrong, "locking up" is just the beginning, just a commitment to enter the entire ecosystem's "declaration of loyalty". The important thing is the subsequent repeated game ------ are you willing to leave all the value within the ecosystem.

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

Speaking plainly, 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 a Module, But a Game Design

Today's Web3 pursues high TPS, low Gas, modular settlement layers, decentralization, etc. However, these do not build trust in products, projects, or protocols.

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

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

Just like the social clearing system of informal finance, DeFi should also be designed so that if you run away, not only will your reputation be ruined, but you will also have to settle in a multilateral financial relationship------lock-up mechanisms, voting rights, and governance rights binding, are the on-chain translations of these "gray clearing mechanisms."

We should build 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; staking and repeated games are the alliances beneath the surface.

"Insider", not because you say so, but because you spend your time, money, and credibility in the abyss with your allies.

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

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

This systemic "inability to exit" and the willingness to continuously invest and settle are the ultimate trust structures that Web3 should pursue.

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

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

It is very much like that classic song "You have to fight to win."

Fate accounts for 30%, while hard work accounts for 70%.

Love "Bo" ( chess ) will win

Be part of the family