> Trust is established ... not by; real names

That's not true. The problem with anonymity or pseudonymity is that there is no way to trace bad behavior beyond the persona and back to the person behind it. A single person can even adopt multiple personas, some of which may be trustworthy, others not. The use of real names constrains this kind of gaming of the system and so makes trustworthiness easier and more reliable to establish.

This is not to say that the costs of using real names outweighs the benefits. They may very well not. But to say that there are no benefits to using real names in terms of establishing trust is just wrong.

Irrespective of real/fake name, behavior is most critical factor in trust, furthermore behavior changes, so interactions is your only information for degree of trust. Your real name is just label nothing more.

Distrust is cognitively taxing, so naturally it is easier to simply trust subject(s) because of real name, title, etc ...

It's also established by pointing to one's past behavior to demonstrate a track record of trustworthiness, of certain values, etc. If it turns out that Mark Zuckerberg is leading the charge, here, you'd be unhappy.

If new product/service is not lead by Mark Zuckerberg you should not trust it ether, since you have no track record, furthermore past performance is not guarantee of future results.