[unabridged]

Decentralized trust is a way to "open source" a customer/merchant database. If centralized trust is required the company controlling it can charge people to use it, for example think of listing fees as ebay charging people for access to their seller ratings. Or uber charging people to access its driver ratings.

With decentralized trust we could create a decentralized uber, where drivers get 99% of the money and 1% going to developers and providers of decentralized insurance.

One alternative to decentralized trust would be setting up a nonprofit to control the trust database, but then you are relying on the government to enforce that the nonprofit doesn't gouge the customers, manipulate the ratings, or embezzle the funds. You are basically just pushing the trust onto courts and law enforcement.

[alonmower]

I would question the viability of a decentralized uber when non-idealistic consumers need to use it. In a decentralized uber where do consumers go if they feel that they were charged in error, or their driver took too long of a route, or... It's not enough for a lot of people to just give someone bad feedback, they want to know that there's a (hopefully) reasonable human on the other end that they can reach out to in case things go sideways.

[s73v3r_]

"With decentralized trust we could create a decentralized uber, where drivers get 99% of the money and 1% going to developers and providers of decentralized insurance."

Why do we want decentralized Uber? Do we not want some basic vetting of the people who are driving us around? I imagine decentralized Uber isn't going to be too quick to remove drivers who sexually harass riders, if it does so at all.

[Geee]

It's not about if we want it. If it's more efficient, it's bound to replace the decentralized one.

[s73v3r_]

Why would decentralized Uber be more efficient?

[Geee]

There's no middleman.