Blockchain has given us an immutable ledger, but only the repeated games played by Chaoshan merchants can teach Web3 the way of trust.

Trust in Web starts with "immutable code" and ends with infinite repeated games.

In the Web3 world, we thought that "immutability" was the ultimate trust. But in fact, that is just the entry-level threshold.

For assets themselves, indeed, an honest ledger that cannot lie or be tampered with is sufficient —— Bitcoin's limited supply of 21 million has built confidence in the blockchain world. An ERC20 balance, the ownership of an NFT, or the completion of a cross-chain transfer, as long as they are recorded on the chain, they are trustworthy enough —— without relying on human emotions.

However, for merchants, money shops, protocols, and project teams, an immutable ledger is just a function, just a threshold. What truly inspires trust is not that it "cannot be changed," but that it "cannot leave" and "is unwilling to leave."

The way of trust in Web3 is not in the consensus mechanism or nodes, but in the transactions between money shops. Trust is forged through transactions.

Trust is the product of repeated games and is also a byproduct of high default costs. It is not a "consensus" that descends from the sky, but a tacit understanding that naturally settles through repeated capital turnover and fulfillment of guarantees.

In the Chaoshan region, the real "trust layer" is not only woven inch by inch through kinship, geographical connections, and personal relationships, but also established and constructed through repeated interactions. The underlying architecture of financial credit is not the ledger, nor is it a simple phrase like "our own people," but rather a tacit understanding after n rounds of games. Trust, like peace, only exists within the range of gunfire.

Chaoshan may have understood earlier than Wall Street that knowing the roots (KYC/KYB) is just the entry point: real trust does not reside in decentralized nodes, nor is it cultivated, but is forged through transactions of breaches and fulfillments.

I. High-Density Repeated Games and Cross-Regional Mutual Guarantees

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

This kind of cross-regional financial cooperation can be established based on a core structure: high-density repeated games + cross-regional mutual guarantee network.

A Chaoshan merchant operating overseas, who regularly transfers funds to domestic family members or partners through a money shop, will develop long-term reciprocal transactional behavior with the money shop and agents over time. This structure is not one-off; 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 another $1 million."

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

II. Default Costs: The Liquidation System in the Gray Order

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

If a transaction defaults, it will not only lead to a ruined reputation locally, but also quickly spread through family networks, hometown connections, and clan communities, forming an irreversible social "liquidation" mechanism. It does not go through the court, but it is enough to make someone "unable to stand in a foreign land."

This is an alternative system to "non-legal sanctions." It is not official, but more efficient and more deterrent than the official system.

You may not believe in a contract, but you will not doubt an entire clan association's boycott order.

III. Multilateral Clearing Network of Funds: The Invisible Transaction Locking Structure

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

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

It is like a naturally formed "Layer 2," where funds flow between different nodes to create a highly elastic but strongly transaction-locked structure:

Funds circulate among multiple points, forming an interwoven web of personal connections and interests;

Behind each transaction is a community creditor structure of "if I get into trouble, you will too."

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

IV. Immutability of Code Is Just the Beginning; "Not Leaving" and Willingness to Continue the Game Are What Make a "Family"

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

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

We should not ask, "Does this protocol have any vulnerabilities?" but rather, "Is this protocol willing to be bound to me for four years?" and continue to contribute and circulate within this ecosystem.

Locking up funds is a form of "self-collateralization" in economic games; ve(3,3) is a game-theoretic commitment to the community that "I will not run away and I am willing to play the long game."

You lock up, I lock up, and we lock each other in to form a stable mutual trust;

Only if you dare to repeatedly engage in the game will I trust that you will not backstab —— the keyword is "dare";

Do you dare to keep your funds circulating and沉淀 within this ecosystem and not leave?

Note: The "locking up" mentioned here is not only for the tokens allocated to the project team in the protocol, but also includes funds raised through public/private offerings, protocol revenues, and even the personal funds of the project founders. "You" and "I" refer to the relationships between Chaoshan merchants and protocols.

But do not misunderstand, "locking up" is just the beginning, just a "token of commitment" to enter the entire ecosystem. What is important is the subsequent repeated games —— whether you dare to keep the value within the ecosystem.

A DeFi protocol truly earns trust not by being open-source, but by institutionally restricting its own right to exit and continuously circulating assets within the ecosystem —— the willingness to engage in long-term, repeated games is the cornerstone of trust.

In plain terms, an unchangeable smart contract is far less trustworthy than an opponent who is unwilling to leave.

V. The Wrong Goals We've Been Chasing Over the Years — Web3 Trust Upgrades Are Not Just Modules, but Game Designs

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

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

Chaoshan money shops tell us that the most reliable relationships are not the rules written in contracts, but the structures written in the costs of default.

Just like the social liquidation system of money shops, DeFi should be designed so that if you run away, you will not only lose your reputation but also be liquidated by multilateral financial relationships —— locking mechanisms, voting rights, and governance rights binding are the on-chain translations of these "gray liquidation mechanisms."

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

Remember, the consensus mechanism is just the protocol on the iceberg, while locking up and repeated games are the alliances beneath the water.

"Ours" is not because you say so, but because you invest your time, money, and credibility with your allies to go to the abyss together.

VI. Epilogue: The Future of Trust Comes from an Alliance That Cannot Withdraw

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

This institutional "inability to withdraw" and the "dare to continuously invest and沉淀" are the ultimate trust structures that Web3 should pursue.

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

And the best trust is not based on "belief," but on the fact that you cannot afford not to believe.