Trust in the Web begins with “code cannot be tampered with” and ends with infinitely repeated games

In the Web3 world, we think that "immutability" is the ultimate trust. But in fact, it is just the threshold for entry.

For the assets themselves, it is indeed enough that the ledger does not lie and cannot be tampered with - Bitcoin only has 21 million. Build confidence in the blockchain world. An ERC20 balance, the ownership of an NFT, the completion of a cross-chain transfer, as long as they are recorded by the chain, they are credible enough - no human heart or emotion is needed.

But for merchants, banks, protocols, and project parties, an unalterable ledger is just a function, just a threshold. What really makes people believe is not that it "cannot be changed", but that it "cannot move" and "is unwilling to move".

The way to trust in Web3 lies not in the consensus mechanism or the nodes, but in the transactions between banks. Trust is built through transactions.

Trust is the product of repeated gaming and an accessory to high default costs. It is not a "consensus" that comes out of thin air, but a tacit understanding that naturally settles down through repeated capital turnover and guarantee performance.

In Chaoshan, the real "trust layer" is not only woven by blood, geography and human feelings, but also established and constructed in repeated confrontations. The underlying structure of financial credit is not an account book, nor a sentence of "sticking to one's own people", but a tacit understanding after n games. Trust, like peace, is only within the range of guns and cannons.

Chaoshan, perhaps earlier than Wall Street, understood that knowing everything (KYC/KYB) is just the beginning: true trust does not reside in decentralized nodes, nor is it cultivated, but is made through transactions of breach of contract and compliance with contracts.

1. High-density repeated games and cross-regional mutual guarantees

The essence of Chaoshan underground money houses is a trust network accumulated through high-frequency and long-term transactions. Its customers are not limited to the local area, but cover Chaoshan immigrant communities from Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur, from Singapore to California.

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

A Chaozhou businessman operating overseas often transfers funds to his family or partners in China through money houses. Over time, he will form a long-term reciprocating transaction with the money houses and agents in the middle. This structure is not a one-time transaction, it is based on the expectation that "I dare to give you 1 million because I know you will come to me again next year to exchange 1 million."

These transaction networks do not rely on contracts, but on a locked structure of trust: family reputation, word-of-mouth inheritance, and mutual guarantee mechanisms, which enable "remote fulfillment" to be achieved even across thousands of miles.

2. Default Cost: Clearing System in the Gray Order

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

If a transaction is breached, it will not only lead to the local reputation being ruined, but will also quickly spread through family networks, township party relations, and clan communities, forming an irreversible social "liquidation" mechanism. It does not go through the courts, but it is enough to make people "unable to gain a foothold overseas."

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

You may not believe in the contract, but you will not disbelieve the ban issued by an entire clan association.

3. Multilateral clearing network of funds: invisible transaction lock structure

Another core mechanism of Chaoshan money houses is the multilateral clearing network of funds.

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

This is like a naturally formed "Layer 2", which builds a highly flexible but strong transaction locking structure through the flow of funds between different nodes:

• Funds circulate between multiple points, forming a tangle of personal relationships and interests;

• Behind every transaction is a community debt structure that states “if something happens to me, something happens to you too.”

This system is more flexible and robust than any on-chain bridging protocol we understand today, even though it does not contain a single line of code.

4. The code cannot be tampered with, which is just the beginning. “Not leaving” after locking up and daring to continue gambling are the “Family”

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

For the assets themselves, it is enough that the ledger cannot be tampered with or does not lie. However, trust in a merchant or an agreement requires higher-dimensional logic and thresholds .

We should not ask: "Does this protocol have loopholes?" Instead, we should ask: "Does this protocol dare to bind me to it for 4 years?" and continue to contribute and flow in this ecosystem.

Locking is a kind of "self-mortgage" in the economic game; ve(3,3) is a game commitment to prove to the community that "I will not run away and I am willing to play for a long time."

• You lock your position, I lock my position, and only when we lock each other can we form a stable mutual trust;

• If you dare to gamble repeatedly, I will believe that you will not backstab me - the key word is "dare";

• Do you dare to deposit all your funds in this ecosystem and circulate them without leaving?

Note: The lock-up mentioned here does not only lock the tokens allocated to the project party in the agreement, but also includes the funds raised by public/private placements, agreement income, and even the personal funds of the project party’s founder. You/I refer to the Chaoshang and the agreement.

But don’t get me wrong, “locking up” is just the beginning, it’s just a “letter of commitment” to enter the entire ecosystem. What’s important is the subsequent repeated game - whether you dare to keep all the value in the ecosystem.

Whether a DeFi protocol truly wins trust does not lie in whether it is open source, but in whether it institutionally restricts its own exit rights and continues to circulate assets in the ecosystem - the courage to engage in long-term and multiple games is the cornerstone of trust.

In plain words, a smart contract that cannot be tampered with is far less trustworthy than an opponent that is unwilling to leave.

5. We have been pursuing the wrong goal in recent years - Web3's trust upgrade is not a module, but a game design

Today's Web3 pursues high TPS, low Gas, modular settlement layer, decentralization, etc. But these cannot build trust in products, projects, and protocols.

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

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

Just like the social liquidation system of money houses, DeFi should also be designed in such a way that if you run away, not only will your reputation be wiped out, but you will also be liquidated by multilateral financial relations - the locking mechanism, voting rights, and governance rights binding are the on-chain translations of these "gray liquidation mechanisms".

What we should build is an environment that allows protocols/merchants to dare to repeat the game indefinitely.

Remember, the consensus mechanism is just the protocol on the iceberg, while lock-up and repeated games are the alliances beneath the surface.

"Stuck with your own people" is not because of what you said, but because you took your time, money and reputation and went into the abyss with your allies.

6. Epilogue: The future of trust comes from an alliance that cannot be withdrawn

"Stick to your own people" is not just an emotional slogan, but the most deterrent system: if you quit, I will be finished too.

This institutional "inability to exit" and "daring to continue to invest and accumulate" is the ultimate trust structure that Web3 should pursue.

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

The best trust is not based on "belief", but on your inability to not believe.

It's very similar to the classic song "Only by working hard can you succeed".

30% is determined by fate, 70% depends on hard work

Only those who love to play games can win

Be part of the Chaoshan family

postscript

In order to make the article more readable, this article only focuses on the discussion of "repeated games". Under the premise of not knowing the ins and outs and high default costs, forcing participants (mainly businessmen) to enter the repeated game environment is also a local optimal solution.