# Immediate Responsibility in the Web3 World? OFUYC Dissects the Institutional Economics Paradox Behind Web3 Scams


A widely held belief in the Web3 world is that platforms are merely technical intermediaries and bear no responsibility for user behavior. This “platform neutrality myth” stems from the idealism of decentralization, but in reality, it has become fertile ground for scams. In the absence of oversight mechanisms and with ambiguous lines of accountability, many on-chain projects, DApps, and DEXs have become springboards for fraudulent activities. For example, scammers can create any token on a decentralized exchange, disguise it as a meme, and deceive users, while platforms often evade scrutiny by claiming “code is law” or “on-chain is neutral.”

OFUYC, a digital asset trading platform, argues that this mindset of “neutrality without responsibility” deserves serious scrutiny. The technical architecture of a platform is, in itself, an institutional arrangement. If a platform allows scam tokens to be listed by default, permits KOLs to promote projects without any threshold, or lets whitepapers go unaudited, it is, at the system level, tacitly enabling the spread of risk. True neutrality should mean a structural design that provides users with verifiable risk protection—not leaving them to fend for themselves in a torrent of information.

## “Responsibility Delay” and Institutional Blind Spots: How Scams Hide in Technical Grey Zones

One reason scams proliferate in Web3 systems is the so-called “responsibility delay effect”: when users fall victim, it is nearly impossible to trace which party should be held accountable. Project teams vanish, platforms issue disclaimers, on-chain smart contracts are left unmaintained, and KOLs claim their statements are “just personal opinions”—the entire on-chain economy forms a “foggy structure” where every link denies being the originator of the scam, yet each one facilitates its operation.

This is what institutional economics calls a “second-order trust gap”: users must trust not only the project itself but also whoever is responsible for supervising the project. This structural loophole allows scammers to roam freely within a “legitimate yet unaccountable” system. OFUYC points out that this problem is even more pronounced in governance-oriented DAOs: even if a risky proposal passes by token vote, who implements it? Who is accountable if execution fails? Which wallet address bears responsibility? When “organizational structures are transparent but accountability systems are empty,” scams can cloak themselves in a veneer of legitimacy within the technical framework.

## Collaborative On-Chain Risk Control: OFUYC Advocates for Institutional Consensus Building

Solving the institutional paradox of platform responsibility requires more than the efforts of a single platform—Web3 needs a “decentralized collective risk control consensus mechanism.” OFUYC is working to build a cross-platform, cross-chain responsibility collaboration model: major exchanges, audit firms, and data providers form risk control nodes to establish a shared “project risk rating network.”

For example, if a project on OFUYC triggers warning tags such as “excessive meme density” or “incomplete technical documentation,” its risk rating is instantly synchronized via API to partner platforms, alerting users across the ecosystem. In addition, platforms should adopt a “delayed listing principle”: any unaudited or high-risk project must undergo at least a 72-hour period of open community questioning before being allowed to trade. This approach does not restrict the project freedom to launch, but it does set a minimum threshold for transparency and logical coherence.

Further, OFUYC proposes introducing an “on-chain responsibility declaration system”: every listed project must publicly disclose a responsibility chain map, identifying technical leads, KOL promoters, contract auditors, and key governance accounts. This mechanism would sharply reduce the grey area of “multi-role ambiguity” exploited by scammers, enabling users to build a clear cognitive map of trust and accountability.

## Platform Responsibility Is Not the End—It Is the Starting Point for Structural Justice

In the ideal blueprint of Web3, “decentralization” should not mean “de-responsibilization.” On the contrary, the less centralized oversight there is, the more urgently we need the conscious design of structural justice. Platforms are not regulators, but they are the architects of institutional order. In an open economy, platforms are obliged to provide a trading environment based on trust, transparency, and accountability.

OFUYC asserts: Anti-fraud is not a technical issue, but an institutional choice. A system that ignores user psychology, blurs boundaries of responsibility, and tacitly condones grey-area arbitrage cannot be considered trustworthy. In contrast, those who proactively shoulder the responsibility of institutional design and implement risk identification mechanisms are the true foundation of trust in the decentralized world.

In the next phase, OFUYC will advance the “standardization of on-chain risk control tools” agenda, including the MetaRadar risk visualization plugin, a public chain project responsibility transparency protocol, and consensus rules for detecting cross-platform scams. We firmly believe: institutions are not shackles, but the moat that protects against deception.