5 ms·

You propose two niches: (1) “Contract settlement company”: this exists, it is called escrow. (2) ”Quality assurance company”: This also exists, though the nam

You propose two niches: (1) “Contract settlement company”: this exists, it is called escrow. (2) ”Quality assurance company”: This also exists, though the names vary by domain. E.g., Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V). They aren't usually linked the way you describe, and its not super common for them to be employed on the same transactions, because they are not-cheap solutions to problems which don't always occur together, at levels that justify those solutions, where any one of them occurs. > I feel it's a billion dollar business IV&V alone (which is a subset of what you call “quality assurance company” is probably significantly bigger than that (large project IV&V I've seen cited at typically 5-10% of total project cost, and the total cost of large enterprise IT projects is... a lot.) And escrow (“contract settlement”) it probably closer to a $100 billion industry than $1 billion.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
I think it would be interesting to explore the barriers to extending escrow and IVV to smaller and smaller transactions. The parent post mentions gig workers. At the extreme, you dont need escrow for a burger delivery because you already have coverage from multiple companies that will simply eat the charge as a cost business, namely the retailer and your credit card. As you point out, cost of verification is a major issue. Often times the customer cant even tell what a proper deliverable is, so how does a 3rd party. I wonder if there is a class of larger transactions where efficient verification is possible.
benjaminktamras 2y ago
Totally agree—and that’s actually where DVI starts to break from legacy systems. Escrow + verification exists, yes—but it’s fragmented, manual, and reactive. What I’m proposing with DVI is a protocol layer that combines passive presence, programmable transaction rules, and autonomous settlement. Think less “escrow agent + QA team” and more: "If deliverable confirmed by X API + location + timestamp, auto-release funds." "If 2/3 validators approve within 24 hours, trigger split settlement to contractor + reviewer." "If transaction exceeds $150, route to identity-assured validator pool for audit." It’s programmable trust, not just third-party enforcement. And it opens the door to scalable contract validation without human bottlenecks. Appreciate the deep comments—this is exactly the level of feedback I was hoping for.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

I think it would be interesting to explore the barriers to extending escrow and IVV to smaller and smaller transactions. The parent post mentions gig workers. At the extreme, you dont need escrow for a burger delivery because you already have coverage from multiple companies that will simply eat the charge as a cost business, namely the retailer and your credit card. As you point out, cost of verification is a major issue. Often times the customer cant even tell what a proper deliverable is, so how does a 3rd party. I wonder if there is a class of larger transactions where efficient verification is possible.

benjaminktamras 2y ago

Totally agree—and that’s actually where DVI starts to break from legacy systems. Escrow + verification exists, yes—but it’s fragmented, manual, and reactive. What I’m proposing with DVI is a protocol layer that combines passive presence, programmable transaction rules, and autonomous settlement. Think less “escrow agent + QA team” and more: "If deliverable confirmed by X API + location + timestamp, auto-release funds." "If 2/3 validators approve within 24 hours, trigger split settlement to contractor + reviewer." "If transaction exceeds $150, route to identity-assured validator pool for audit." It’s programmable trust, not just third-party enforcement. And it opens the door to scalable contract validation without human bottlenecks. Appreciate the deep comments—this is exactly the level of feedback I was hoping for.