Trustless Is Reshaping the World: How Bitcoin, Ethereum, and ZK Redefine Trust
3-Point Summary
- The root of the US debt crisis is traced to a centralized trust structure that enables unchecked money creation.
- Bitcoin, Ethereum, and institutional ZK represent three stages of decentralizing trust: physical, financial, and institutional.
- Without redesigning the trust architecture itself, the same systemic failures will continue to repeat.
The US debt crisis reveals a deeper issue: a centralized trust structure that no longer works. A new trustless architecture is emerging to replace it.
20-Second Shorts Video
The US Debt Crisis and the ‘Trustless Trust Revolution’: Joseph Lubin’s View on the Solution
On May 7, 2026, Ethereum co-founder Joseph Lubin appeared on the When Shift Happens podcast to unpack the root causes of the US debt crisis and pointed to blockchain technology as a key part of the solution.
According to Lubin, after the US moved off the gold standard, a loop of mutual interests formed among corporations, lobbyists, and legislators. This loop enabled governments to effectively print money without real restraint, creating a system where debt can grow endlessly. In his view, the current political system has no realistic way to stop this trajectory.
But the core of Lubin’s argument lies elsewhere: in the ‘Trustless’ concept introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in the Bitcoin whitepaper.
Trustless does not mean “a system where you trust no one,”
but rather “a system where you don’t have to trust a single central institution.”
Lubin saw Bitcoin as an antifragile new foundation of trust, and this philosophy ultimately led to the birth of DeFi (decentralized finance).
This shift in trust has evolved in three directions:
Physical trust decentralization (Bitcoin) → Financial trust decentralization (Ethereum) → Institutional trust decentralization (ZK for institutions)
1) Centralized trust: A structure where one institution holds all the power
In a centralized system, trust is built by believing a single institution. Governments, central banks, commercial banks, and large financial institutions all fit this model.
- One institution monopolizes records, rules, and decision-making
- Internal decision-making is largely opaque
- A single point of failure (SPOF) exists
- Power concentration → higher risk of corruption
- Users cannot independently verify the system
This structure can be efficient, but because trust is concentrated at a single point, it is structurally fragile.
2) Bitcoin’s trust: ‘Physical decentralization’ powered by hash rate
Bitcoin removes the central institution and instead bases trust on the aggregate hash power of miners worldwide.
- Miners’ computational power (hash rate) is the total trust budget
- No single actor can easily monopolize the entire hash rate
- All nodes validate blocks under the same rules
- Invalid blocks are automatically rejected
- A 51% attack is theoretically possible but economically and practically very hard
Bitcoin reduces the fragility of centralized systems through decentralization of physical resources (electricity, hardware, computation).
3) Ethereum’s trust: ‘Financial decentralization’ via staked assets
With its transition to Proof of Stake (PoS), Ethereum now anchors trust in the total amount of ETH staked.
- The total staked ETH represents the network’s trust capital
- Validators are geographically and institutionally distributed
- Rule violations lead to slashing, causing economic loss
- Capturing the network requires enormous capital, making economic attacks inefficient
If Bitcoin decentralizes physical resources, Ethereum decentralizes economic resources.
4) ZK for institutions: A practical way to decentralize trust in centralized institutions
ZK for institutions offers a way to move trust from central institutions to a decentralized base without forcing those institutions to rip out and replace their existing systems.
The core idea is extremely simple:
Institutions generate proofs, and Ethereum L1 verifies those proofs.
4-1. Institutions: Generate ZK proofs of rule compliance
Institutions can create zero-knowledge proofs that say “we followed the rules” without revealing underlying data.
- Real customer and transaction data stays inside the institution’s own databases
- Only proofs, not raw data, are submitted externally
- Existing core systems remain intact while adding verifiability
4-2. Ethereum L1: Verify that proofs satisfy the rules
Ethereum L1 never sees the institution’s data. It only checks whether the proof satisfies the verification circuit (the rule).
- Cannot be tampered with
- Cannot be deleted
- Anyone can re-verify
4-3. Why it’s stronger than a TTP
A traditional Trusted Third Party (TTP) brings us back to “you must trust this new central entity.” Ethereum L1, by contrast:
- Cannot collude with institutions
- Cannot be unilaterally manipulated
- Preserves records permanently
That’s why ZK for institutions is often described as the simplest and most powerful way to move institutional trust from centralization to decentralization.
This topic is explored in more depth in the DCT feature:
The Enterprise Blockchain Experiment Is Over: ZK + Ethereum Define the New Standard
Conclusion: If we don’t redesign trust, the crisis will repeat
“Centralized trust structures cannot solve the problems of debt, corruption, and opacity. We need a new, decentralized trust architecture.”
Bitcoin implements physical trust decentralization, Ethereum implements financial trust decentralization, and ZK for institutions implements institutional trust decentralization.
These three are not competitors; they are three pillars of a new trust order that can reshape future financial, political, and economic systems.
There is no magic, one-shot solution to the US debt crisis. But one thing is clear: as long as we keep the old trust structure, the same problems will keep returning in new forms.
Younchan Jung
Researcher exploring structural shifts in AI, blockchain, and the on‑chain economy.
If you would like to read this article in Korean, please click the button below.
댓글
댓글 쓰기