A revealing question: When was the last time you truly read through the user agreement of an app or website from start to finish?

Honestly, most people's answer is probably—never. When we enter any digital platform, we habitually scan that dense block of terms, then just tap "Agree" and move on. It’s as if those are just an annoying step we can’t avoid, rather than an important commitment.

Now, look at it from a different perspective: when you see similar clauses in the documentation of emerging protocols or applications, have you ever wondered—why, in a blockchain world that claims "code is law," are we still signing "human agreements" filled with loopholes and unilateral change rights with platforms?

This isn’t about nitpicking legal details; it’s about questioning a fundamental issue: should we rethink our understanding of "trust"?

**The Trap of Traditional Platform Agreements**

The user agreements of traditional internet services are essentially an unequal game. The platform holds the pen and has the right to "modify terms at any time without prior notice," and what about you? Your only rights are to stop using it, uninstall the app, or switch to another platform.

If the terms change to your disadvantage? Sorry, you have virtually no recourse. How is your information used? Do they make money or shut down? Who pays if something goes wrong? These core issues are buried in legal jargon. Your "I agree" is less about informed consent and more about forced compromise.

**What Blockchain Aims to Break**

The Web3 community has been shouting for years about "code is law," and the core demand is here: to turn those vague, arbitrarily changeable "human agreements" into transparent, immutable on-chain rules.

Smart contracts won’t secretly change clauses behind your back. Every update to the agreement leaves a trace on the chain. You can see, verify, and choose whether to continue participating. It’s no longer "I decide, you passively accept," but "rules are clear, participation is voluntary."

This shift sounds simple but is profoundly meaningful—it fundamentally changes the nature of power relations.

**Of course, the road is still long**

We don’t need to pretend everything is perfect now. The reality is, many projects still have complex on-chain logic that can be troublesome, and new issues like audit risks and smart contract vulnerabilities are emerging. But at least the direction is correct: shifting from a black box to transparency, from unilateral power to consensus-based governance.

Next time you see a clause or statement, perhaps you’ll think a little more—does the trust structure behind it really align with what I want? In the crypto world, this kind of active reflection might be the most important first step.