Author: 0xIntuition

Compiled by: cc

In the cryptocurrency space, “Don’t trust, verify” is a common mantra. Blockchain technology was born from the idea that we can replace human trust with objective code—creating trustless systems where mathematics and algorithms can enforce honesty. In an ideal world, Web3 would allow us to transact and collaborate without having to take anyone's word for it. But in reality, the cryptocurrency ecosystem is far from completely trustless. As anyone who has spent time in the financial “Wild West” knows, we rely on people, information sources, and social consensus at almost every turn.

The fact is, while blockchains can eliminate certain intermediaries, they cannot completely eliminate trust. Some key layers of the Web3 “stack” still operate on trust—trust in people, in data, in the chain of events. In fact, as cryptocurrency becomes increasingly complex, trust and distrust are equally important. This article explores why trust remains crucial in cryptocurrency, where our current trust gaps are, and how we can make Web3 more “trustworthy” by adding better information and incentives. We will introduce Intuition, an ambitious approach that brings trust to trustless systems through a decentralized, token-driven knowledge graph.

Let’s delve into why even trustless networks need a layer of trust, and how Intuition is building that trust layer.

The Myth of Complete Trustlessness in Cryptocurrency

Blockchain enthusiasts often tout Web3 as “trustless.” By design, blockchain networks do not require trust in a central authority; consensus algorithms like proof of work or proof of stake allow strangers to agree on the state of a ledger without knowing each other. In theory, code and cryptography replace human subjective trust.

However, the term “trustless” is somewhat misleading. Even in “trustless” systems, trust does not disappear—it shifts to different parts of the system. Let’s consider some ways trust still plays a role in today’s cryptocurrency:

Trust in Protocols and Code: You may not trust banks, but you do trust the code of smart contracts or the rules of blockchain protocols. Unless you can personally audit every contract you interact with (an impossible task for most), you implicitly trust the developers who wrote the code and the auditors who reviewed it. When you use a DeFi platform, you trust that the smart contracts won’t fail or be malicious. History shows that this trust can be misplaced—countless hacks and exploits (due to faulty code or hidden backdoors) have led to loss of funds.

Trust in People and Governance: Decentralized networks are operated by communities, which have leaders or core contributors. For example, proof of stake blockchain consensus—often considered “trustless”—actually requires trusting that the majority of validators (who are individuals or organizations) will act honestly. If a few large stakers collude, they could undermine the network. Moreover, key upgrades or emergency decisions (like how to handle a major hack) often come down to social consensus—the community must trust each other and agree on a solution. In practice, every blockchain ultimately relies on a layer of social trust between its users and node operators. It has been said that for blockchains, “this is social consensus.” In other words, humans still decide which chain or version of the truth to accept.

Trust in Off-Chain Data and Services: Most real-world applications require data from outside the blockchain (prices, weather information, authentication, etc.). This data often comes from oracles or external sources that users must trust to be accurate. Similarly, if you use a cryptocurrency exchange or wallet application, you trust that their interface will show you real data and that their servers are secure. Even something as simple as a blockchain explorer— we trust it to accurately report transactions and balances.

Trust in Institutions and Intermediaries: Despite the spirit of “everything decentralized,” the cryptocurrency space still relies on many centralized entities. Think of custodial exchanges (where users deposit funds), stablecoin issuers (whose reserves we trust to maintain value), or developers who control the keys for managing protocol upgrades. Major exchange and project collapses due to mismanagement (like exchange hacks or founder fraud) highlight that blind trust in code is not enough; we ultimately also trust the people behind the code, which can sometimes lead to disastrous consequences.

In short, the ideal of “trustlessness” has its limitations. We can eliminate certain trust requirements (like not needing to trust a bank’s ledger), but we inevitably introduce other forms of trust (trust in code, governance, data feeds, etc.). Cryptocurrency is still in its infancy, full of unknowns, with bad actors exploiting information gaps. Scams, rug pulls, and misinformation are rampant, precisely because there is no robust Web3 equivalent to the protections and verified information we expect in traditional environments. To move forward, we must acknowledge that certain layers cannot yet be completely trustless—but rather focus on making them more trustworthy.

Why Web3 Needs a “Trustworthy” Interaction Layer

If we accept that not everything in Web3 can be purely trustless, the question becomes: how do we inject more trust into those inevitable gaps? The answer lies in better information and transparency. In a sense, knowledge is the antidote to blind trust. The more we know about a person, a contract, or a project, the less we need to rely on blind trust. Better data can clarify risks, verify claims, and expose fraud before it traps users.

Unfortunately, today’s information landscape in cryptocurrency is fragmented and unreliable. Important facts are hard to find, and due diligence often means spending hours searching different sources. Let’s analyze where our information (and trust) currently comes from:

1. Data is Fragmented Across the Internet: There is a wealth of cryptocurrency-related data online—forum posts, news articles, Twitter posts, blockchain records, audit reports, and more. In theory, everything needed to evaluate a project or person could exist. In practice, this data is highly fragmented and isolated. Each exchange, social platform, or analytics site holds a piece of the puzzle, but there is no unified way to sift through it all. Even if you gather data, attribution is a challenge: is this source credible? Who wrote this comment, and can we verify their identity or reputation? Online information is easily manipulated—fake reviews, scam accounts, biased reports—making it tricky to trust. Additionally, much valuable data is hidden behind closed doors (think private chats, proprietary databases, or simply not indexed by search engines). The bottom line: the data is there, but it is chaotic, disorganized, and hard to trust.

2. Knowledge is Locked in People’s Minds: The most reliable information often isn’t publicly available—it lives with experienced individuals. In the cryptocurrency space, reputations and danger signals spread through back channels: one investor warns another about a rough founder, or a developer gives a thumbs-up after working with someone privately. Human insights are incredibly valuable, but they are mostly exchanged in ad-hoc ways (private messages, phone calls, closed groups). If you want to know the real story behind a project, you often have to ask around. For example, due diligence on a new token might require manually reaching out to contacts: “Hey, have you heard of this team? Any red flags?” This process is inefficient and exclusive—only those with the right networks can access insights. Most people won’t share their full knowledge publicly, so a lot of “trust data” simply doesn’t get captured online.

Given these issues, it’s no wonder newcomers feel lost, and even veterans can get scammed. Cryptocurrency needs a better way to aggregate and verify information—a system that transforms subjective trust (reputation, opinions, private knowledge) into objective data that anyone can use. In other words, we need to make the untrustworthy parts of Web3 more “trustworthy.”

Trust doesn’t mean going back to blind faith; it means creating structures that earn trust and are verifiable. If certain layers (like understanding a project’s credibility) cannot be purely handled by code, then let’s find ways to inject rich, reliable information into these layers so that users can trust in an informed manner. This is especially important now: the openness of cryptocurrency gives us unparalleled freedom, but this freedom comes with personal responsibility. Without better trust signals, many will either get burned or completely avoid it. To welcome the next wave of users (and institutional investors), we must tame the chaos with transparent collective knowledge.

Intuition: Bringing Trust to Trustless Systems

Intuition is a new project born from this realization—that relying solely on trustlessness is not enough, and the missing piece is an open system for managing trust and knowledge. The vision of Intuition is to add a “trust layer” to Web3 in the form of a decentralized, token-incentivized knowledge graph. This is a mouthful, so let’s break it down in simpler terms:

At its core, Intuition aims to build a crowdsourced database of claims and reputations—a universal “who said what” ledger that exists on the blockchain. The idea is to transform weak, subjective trust points (opinions, endorsements, comments, context) into structured data that anyone can verify and contribute to. Importantly, Intuition not only collects this information but also curates it. It rewards people for providing honest, useful input with a native token (aptly named $TRUST). Think of it as a living knowledge network where data about people, projects, and any concepts is continuously updated and ranked based on community confidence.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。