The trade offs happen but they aren’t the reason to say “the optimal amount of fraud is non zero”.

The correct framing is “since we accept some fraud, the optimal amount of fraud must be non-zero”.

As written, it sounds like society can only function if there is some amount of fraud.

I gave this analogy to a sibling comment of yours. Maybe it will help clarify my point. We accept some adulteration (let’s say it is 2% for conversation sake) in coffee. That’s not the same as “the optimal purity of coffee is 98%”. The optimal purity of coffee is 100% but since we can’t guarantee that some not-coffee stuff has mixed in with coffee, we live with 98%.