Do we need enforced rules, or is transparency enough?

Many crypto systems still rely on social trust: trust the team, trust intentions, trust “community monitoring.” But vigilance is fragile. People change, incentives shift, and attention fades.

A different approach is enforced alignment: irreversible or constraint-based mechanisms that reduce discretion over time, for example:

• Extension-only locks (can be prolonged, not shortened)
• Time-based vesting with no discretionary accelerations
• Rule-bound distributions that execute automatically based on on-chain conditions

This isn’t “distrust by default.” It’s an economic design choice: reduce the attack surface created by human discretion and minimize the need for constant oversight.

Question:
In your view, where is the line between “transparent enough” and “needs enforcement”? What mechanisms have you seen work well in practice—and which ones create a false sense of security?