Code vs Culture: Sources of Trust in a Crypto World

Author: CHAO WANG

Whether it is the encrypted world or the real world, trust is the basis for the continuous operation of the world. In the crypto world, trust is built in two distinct ways.

The most common ones in the encryption world are strong protocol projects, which implement trust through code deployed on the blockchain network that cannot be changed at will. This concept is called "Trustless", which is often translated as "to trust". Of course, distrust does not mean that there is no trust, but that there is no need to consider the factor of trust. Because **people's trust comes from 1) the code is open, transparent and strong; 2) the blockchain network where the code is deployed is also sufficiently secure. **

Taking Bitcoin as an example, people don’t need to trust Satoshi Nakamoto. Everyone's trust comes from the integrity of the Bitcoin code and the security of the Bitcoin network. Similarly, if a person uses Uniswap, he does not have to trust the founder Hayden Adams, but trusts the code of Uniswap itself and the security of the Ethereum network. This form of trust stems from consensus at the technical level and underpins the fundamental values of the crypto world.

With the evolution of encryption culture, many community projects have emerged. Such projects rely on members of the community to organize and advance the project, rather than pre-deployed code on the blockchain. Although it is said to be community-centered, most projects usually involve a centralized initiator and executor. For a long time, the community still needs them to efficiently organize work and promote project development, and sometimes they even master The resources and commitments given often also form part of the overall consensus.

**Trust in this context stems from the recognition of shared values and goals on which the community must agree and trust that the performers (whether individuals, groups, or companies) are equally committed to those values. **Everyone understands that the binding power of technology is limited, and if the implementer is willing, there is always a way to get around it. Here, encryption technology plays more of a role in ownership distribution, group coordination, etc., rather than strict control over all elements of the project. "Multiplayer games" have become a popular narrative in Web3, although in some ways this is at odds with the underlying ethos of the crypto world.

But the world is not black and white, these two situations are like two ends of a spectrum. Most protocol projects cannot achieve 100% code constraints, but rely on or allow social layer intervention to a certain extent. Even projects that are purely centered on community members will more or less use code constraints, such as multi-person co-management accounts based on smart contracts. There are still many innovators who are working hard to stitch these two situations together, and through innovation, many scenarios that could not be realized through code can be realized.

But to this day, community projects still mainly rely on the social layer's consensus on values. A friend discussed with me whether there is a good or even general mechanism that can be used to achieve trust in community projects, but I don't think there is. If it is necessary to establish a complex mechanism to gain community trust, this shows that the social layer's consensus on values has not been reached. For a project that relies on the community, its fate is almost doomed at this moment.

**The current NFT market, especially PFP projects, has encountered a great crisis of trust. In my opinion, it is precisely because these projects are not connected at both ends. ****Most projects have never had a consensus on values, and the project party just wants to tell an attractive story to attract buy-in. **It may not be fair to many projects to say that these projects are all scammers, but it is certainly not unfair to say that most of them are scammers. The more deadly point is that even if the original intention of the project itself is good, it has not been implemented well. Few projects have been able to build a strong and sustainable consensus of values. Most of the so-called "community participants" attracted are also there to make money.

There is obviously no consensus at the technical level. Most projects are just a collection of on-chain/off-chain pictures, and many projects do not even have a multi-signature account co-managed by the community. If you can't touch both ends, naturally there is no trust at all.

While such projects may maintain a delicate consensus balance for a period of time, and may even exhibit strong consensus characteristics to attract more participants, this balance is very fragile. The fate of a community project is not only determined by the project initiator, but also by the community itself. And the community has never been a pipeline product that can be built through a certain mechanism. A community needs to mature organically, in harmony with its cultural ethos.