A recent debate surfaced around government welfare programs: if poverty relief truly functions as intended, shouldn't fraud prevention rank as the paramount concern? The argument suggests that enhanced scrutiny of benefit distribution—particularly identifying misuse and inefficiencies—should logically be foundational to any effective assistance system. Yet critics counter that rigorous oversight often faces cultural or political resistance, sometimes reframed as discriminatory. This tension reveals a deeper question: how do we balance program accessibility with fiscal responsibility? Whether examining social safety nets or any resource allocation system, the friction between protective mechanisms and equitable access remains unresolved. Web3 communities have engaged similar debates around protocol governance and fund allocation—where transparency and fraud prevention must coexist with inclusive participation.