4 ms·

> A commonly cited application of smart contracts is insurance, where supporters believe smart contracts can simplify the claims process and encourage faster pa

> A commonly cited application of smart contracts is insurance, where supporters believe smart contracts can simplify the claims process and encourage faster payouts. I don't see how this makes sense at all. The big problem when handling insurance claims is determining the facts and then interpreting the insurance conditions. None of these can happen on the blockchain, so this information would have to come from an oracle, and in the end you still need to do pretty much exactly the same thing. This would be really more like an unnecessarily complex way to add a mandatory arbitration clause to the insurance. That would result in the same result, another entity chosen by the insurer will judge claims and decide on them. Adding a blockchain here doesn't seem to provide any value at all.

Nursie 5y ago
> Adding a blockchain here doesn't seem to provide any value at all. This is generally true, AFAICT, in pretty much all situations.
lampe3 5y ago
you got it XD Blockchain/Smart Contracts are a solution were we first have to find a problem they are really solving or solving better.
kybernetikos 5y ago
AXA trialed a blockchain insurance product called fizzy. The concept was that you bought the insurance, and an oracle published flight information, and if your flight was delayed, the payout was automatic. They haven't continued with it, so it may have had problems, and I don't know if it required proof that you actually had a ticket (not doing so could create various problems), but actually I think the blockchain is a great option for this. The reason is that many people do not trust insurance companies. There is a feeling that they will find any excuse to avoid paying out. To have a blockchain solution where payout is according to a smart contract that is transparent and public is a way to build trust with your customers.
- fabian2k 5y ago
  After quickly looking this up, it looks like this automatically sent the money to a supplied credit card. There is no part here that actually needs a blockchain or smart contracts, it's just automated evaluation of the insurance claims. The "smart contract" can't force AXA to pay money to your credit card, so it's entirely superfluous here. You could implement the same thing witout a blockchain or a smart contract.
  - kybernetikos 5y ago
    Sure - this product may not have ultimately worked, but the general concept is finding ways to make insurance payouts more transparent. That is actually a good idea given the severe deficit of trust in insurance companies that has been identified as one of the issues stopping people purchasing insurance.
    - black_puppydog 5y ago
      The point is not that the product didn't work. The point is that the use of blockchain technology had absolutely no (positive) impact on its viability or usefulness or reliability. Blockchains have very few very specific usecases, and nobody wants to admit that their usecase isn't one of them.
      - kybernetikos 5y ago
        Your point seems to be about this specific product. My point is about the idea of using a blockchain to increase transparency and verifiability of a process that makes payments. This is one of the 'very few, very specific' use cases that blockchains are good at.
        theaeolist 5y ago
        You don't seem to understand what the previous poster said: all of this can be achieved with a database that allows some open access. You don't need a consensus protocol on a distributed system.
chrisco255 5y ago
That's one of millions of applications. But yes, a human or a group of humans still need to be in the loop somewhere along the automation line, but depending on the insurance type, this sort of activity can be partially automated by automatic data feeds from oracles, such as what Etherisc does with crop insurance and flight insurance: https://etherisc.com/#products https://etherisc.com/#products Etherisc's crop insurance product, in particular, is aimed at developing nations that do not have robust legal systems or mature, reliable, trustworthy insurance companies. They can, however, get some level of protection by blending weather disaster reports from oracles (drought, hurricane, flood, etc) along with geolocation data with automatic payouts. So in that scenario it's actually a big improvement over the existing system, which is no crop insurance at all. And a smart contract that is provably solvent is far better than a fleeting promise from a local company that may steal your money with no legal recourse due to the jurisdiction.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > a big improvement over the existing system, which is no crop insurance at all Wat. It’s been provided by the federal government since 1938 [1]. It’s basically free for catastrophic. (It’s true that it’s not available for all crops in all counties. But that’s usually for a good reason. And private insurance fills the gaps.) [1] https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/what/history.html https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/what/history.html [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_of_1938 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_...
  - unfocussed_mike 5y ago
    Is this a tacit admission that the USA is a "developing nation"? (Which is what GP is referring to). Because I'd buy that theory. (Less so a blockchain solution to anything)
  - chrisco255 5y ago
    In third world countries with no robust legal systems, such as Kenya, where they deployed. Read what I'm saying. All of what I'm saying.

Nursie 5y ago

> Adding a blockchain here doesn't seem to provide any value at all. This is generally true, AFAICT, in pretty much all situations.

lampe3 5y ago

you got it XD Blockchain/Smart Contracts are a solution were we first have to find a problem they are really solving or solving better.

kybernetikos 5y ago

AXA trialed a blockchain insurance product called fizzy. The concept was that you bought the insurance, and an oracle published flight information, and if your flight was delayed, the payout was automatic. They haven't continued with it, so it may have had problems, and I don't know if it required proof that you actually had a ticket (not doing so could create various problems), but actually I think the blockchain is a great option for this. The reason is that many people do not trust insurance companies. There is a feeling that they will find any excuse to avoid paying out. To have a blockchain solution where payout is according to a smart contract that is transparent and public is a way to build trust with your customers.

fabian2k 5y ago
After quickly looking this up, it looks like this automatically sent the money to a supplied credit card. There is no part here that actually needs a blockchain or smart contracts, it's just automated evaluation of the insurance claims. The "smart contract" can't force AXA to pay money to your credit card, so it's entirely superfluous here. You could implement the same thing witout a blockchain or a smart contract.
- kybernetikos 5y ago
  Sure - this product may not have ultimately worked, but the general concept is finding ways to make insurance payouts more transparent. That is actually a good idea given the severe deficit of trust in insurance companies that has been identified as one of the issues stopping people purchasing insurance.
  - black_puppydog 5y ago
    The point is not that the product didn't work. The point is that the use of blockchain technology had absolutely no (positive) impact on its viability or usefulness or reliability. Blockchains have very few very specific usecases, and nobody wants to admit that their usecase isn't one of them.
    - kybernetikos 5y ago
      Your point seems to be about this specific product. My point is about the idea of using a blockchain to increase transparency and verifiability of a process that makes payments. This is one of the 'very few, very specific' use cases that blockchains are good at.
      - theaeolist 5y ago
        You don't seem to understand what the previous poster said: all of this can be achieved with a database that allows some open access. You don't need a consensus protocol on a distributed system.

chrisco255 5y ago

That's one of millions of applications. But yes, a human or a group of humans still need to be in the loop somewhere along the automation line, but depending on the insurance type, this sort of activity can be partially automated by automatic data feeds from oracles, such as what Etherisc does with crop insurance and flight insurance: https://etherisc.com/#products https://etherisc.com/#products Etherisc's crop insurance product, in particular, is aimed at developing nations that do not have robust legal systems or mature, reliable, trustworthy insurance companies. They can, however, get some level of protection by blending weather disaster reports from oracles (drought, hurricane, flood, etc) along with geolocation data with automatic payouts. So in that scenario it's actually a big improvement over the existing system, which is no crop insurance at all. And a smart contract that is provably solvent is far better than a fleeting promise from a local company that may steal your money with no legal recourse due to the jurisdiction.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> a big improvement over the existing system, which is no crop insurance at all Wat. It’s been provided by the federal government since 1938 [1]. It’s basically free for catastrophic. (It’s true that it’s not available for all crops in all counties. But that’s usually for a good reason. And private insurance fills the gaps.) [1] https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/what/history.html https://legacy.rma.usda.gov/aboutrma/what/history.html [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_of_1938 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_Adjustment_Act_...
- unfocussed_mike 5y ago
  Is this a tacit admission that the USA is a "developing nation"? (Which is what GP is referring to). Because I'd buy that theory. (Less so a blockchain solution to anything)
- chrisco255 5y ago
  In third world countries with no robust legal systems, such as Kenya, where they deployed. Read what I'm saying. All of what I'm saying.