In addition to not being fully effective and implicitly labeling[0] participants as untrustworthy, a system that forces everyone to play by the rules without removing the factors that make people abuse the system in the first place only makes the abuse more attractive, consequential and inevitable. The most attractive position in such a reality would of course be the position of those who set the rules (I suspect the field in question is bustling in part because many see themselves within that elite, if only they could make this future come true)—and, of course, the rule-setters are never immune to the motivation for abuse either (only they may get away without it being labeled as such).
On the other hand, if those factors are addressed, an intricate system of verifications and hash checks is just unnecessary friction and a source of added complexity to maintain.
This is so important.
If someone is trustworthy, you need fewer checks in balances to be able to be confident that transactions with them will go well.
If, on the other hand, someone is not trustworthy, all the systems in the world cannot guarantee good outcomes.