Yeah, but they won't necessarily. There's a lot of places in society where people ought to infer the worst if the data is hidden from them, but people continue

Yeah, but they won't necessarily. There's a lot of places in society where people ought to infer the worst if the data is hidden from them, but people continue hiding data because it works. To give an example, I remember when FTX put out its "balance sheet", which was basically a one page spread sheet with visibly-obviously BS round numbers in it in some places. It barely qualified as a joke for a multi-billion dollar enterprise. But there was still some people... a minority, sure, but not just one or two people... arguing that, hey, maybe it was still all on the up and up and if we could just see the real info it would all be OK. But we were entitled to conclude from such a balance sheet that FTX was a scam enterprise. It would be theoretically possible that we'd be wrong in such a conclusion; being entitled to conclude something is not the same as being guaranteed to be correct about the conclusion. However, in this case, the many who did conclude from the hiding of the data that the hidden data was about as bad as could be were have been correct. Many people conflate being entitled to conclude something with being guaranteed to be correct. It's worth pondering the distinction if you don't immediately get what I'm saying. It is related to the question of "burden of proof"; in this example, for good and sufficient historical reasons we are entitled to assume that a company is being naughty (not just in the crypto space, in general) and they have a positive burden to prove that they are on the up-and-up. Failing to do so is not proof that they are behaving poorly. But it does mean we are entitled to assume and act as if they are behaving poorly, and it is their responsibility to prove otherwise, not ours.