Blockchain has a frequently touted feature—transparency. Everyone holds a ledger, data is completely consistent, and no one can tamper with it. It sounds perfect, but there is a fatal misconception: transparent ledgers do not equal problem resolution.

The most straightforward example is exchange platform insolvency. Your asset data is clearly recorded on the chain, and every transaction can be verified. But what if the platform runs off with the funds? What use are those numbers to you? The ledger is there, but you have no effective way to recover your money. A transparent ledger becomes a blank sheet of paper.

Even more painfully, blockchain can only guarantee the consistency of "record-keeping," but cannot ensure the consistency of "execution." The whole world knows exactly how much a debtor owes. The accounts are as clear as can be. The problem is: you have no way to enforce it against him. Without enforcement power or constraint mechanisms, that data becomes just decoration.

True trust has never come from how transparent the ledger is, but from whether there is enough consensus and binding force behind it. Gold has been a hard currency for centuries not because its ledger is particularly clear, but because the most powerful countries worldwide recognize it. Consensus is the essence of trust, not data transparency.

This is why blockchain can change many things, but cannot solve the fundamental dilemma of trust itself.