4 ms·

I think a lot of people are put off when they hear the “buzzword” web3. And that’s with good reason, it is a marketing term, and it can be used as smoke and mir

I think a lot of people are put off when they hear the “buzzword” web3. And that’s with good reason, it is a marketing term, and it can be used as smoke and mirrors tricks for things with no real utility. I don’t think this is the case here, smart contracts actually provide a very valuable service for this use case! The important thing to note is that these rental agreements usually cost a lot of money and logistics that are being made much more convenient using ethereum Re: Your example about the car — you would likely never lend out a car to someone you have 0 trust in. But you might keep some deposit just in case something happens, just like a regular rental service would. Automating that for people is very useful in my opinion! Logistical issues will get better over time, but this suffers from the same logistics problem as Facebook marketplace, Craigslist, etc. and these services are extremely popular Re: describing it as a library vs Airbnb — I think a library is a useful description of this. We are trying to be closer to a protocol service for people to create a library with their friends and lend things out to people. I don’t see the issue with using “library” vs “Airbnb for stuff”

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kristjansson 5y ago
It's not unclever - but you might misjudge the value of codifying social relationships if you're not targeting trust-less relationships. If you were to really dispassionately analyze the transaction, lending something to a friend or acquaintance is predicated on there being enough social capital at risk in the relationship (or shared network) to insure things go well, or that you're made whole if they don't, along with a general knowledge their ability to cover potential loss. IMO codifying that into a financial relationship signals that you don't trust that reservoir of social capital, and in doing so erodes it. "Oh, I guess he doesn't actually trust me that much, if he's asking me to post collateral to borrow his truck".
- pmoncada 5y ago
  The idea is really starting from a core group of people who trust each other and then expanding that circle using the collateral mechanism for new entrants and then making the relationship less codified over time and more natural The real value is in having an index of people you trust and all the things they’re willing to lend to you I think as people gain trust over time the network effects start to become really valuable

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

kristjansson 5y ago

It's not unclever - but you might misjudge the value of codifying social relationships if you're not targeting trust-less relationships. If you were to really dispassionately analyze the transaction, lending something to a friend or acquaintance is predicated on there being enough social capital at risk in the relationship (or shared network) to insure things go well, or that you're made whole if they don't, along with a general knowledge their ability to cover potential loss. IMO codifying that into a financial relationship signals that you don't trust that reservoir of social capital, and in doing so erodes it. "Oh, I guess he doesn't actually trust me that much, if he's asking me to post collateral to borrow his truck".

pmoncada 5y ago
The idea is really starting from a core group of people who trust each other and then expanding that circle using the collateral mechanism for new entrants and then making the relationship less codified over time and more natural The real value is in having an index of people you trust and all the things they’re willing to lend to you I think as people gain trust over time the network effects start to become really valuable