|
|
|
|
|
|
by paddlepop
1722 days ago
|
|
|
I still don't understand why this needs to be decentralised? > without having to solely trust the company issuing the nft ticket For the transaction yes, but what about the thing you are buying? Perhaps I am not thinking creatively enough, but I can't think of a use case where there isn't ultimately some trust required other than solely digital assets. Using your hotel example, you will end up at the hotel where they can choose to honor your ticket in the same way as their traditional booking system. There was no need for this to be on a distributed ledger as the asset (a hotel stay) was between you and the hotel. You are not cutting out the middle man of some SaaS provider, you are substituting them. |
|
|
Perhaps, but its ok either way, it's not really limiting the DAO or the places leveraging the DAO to pursue this stuff.
> Using your hotel example, you will end up at the hotel where they can choose to honor your ticket in the same way as their traditional booking system. There was no need for this to be on a distributed ledger as the asset (a hotel stay) was between you and the hotel.
Its not just about honoring the ticket for the duration of any particular booking, but also mitigating the risk between multiple parties and being able to easily integrate such information with as many decentralized protocols are needed for the parties involved without extra dev overhead to connect them.
For some places, you need to have a card on file in case of damages (this is where the decentralized escrow/dispute and resolution protocol come in) and rely soley on visa/mastercard and the hotel unilaterally being able to say that you were the cause of an issue that may come up or being able to decided whether or not you are on the hook.
Incentivized actors (these need not be people, it could be automated, but since everything has an address, no one can tell the difference) of those other protocols on chain need visibility with the address that held the nft. So yes, its trust the protocols and incentives associated with them around handling dispute and resolution and non custodial locking of collateral in escrow (or allowing another protocol to time lock collateral on ones behalf).
And this assumes that the place someone buys an nft stay has the in house capability to do all that without using a particualr nft stay protocol (which alot of places dont esp for random bnb) or ok with giving a large cut to airbnb/booking.com/visa etc if they don't.
> You are not cutting out the middle man of some SaaS provider, you are substituting them.
Yes, for code that can take a lot less of the cut than existing SaaS providers (if any at all). A protocol != SaaS provider, even though a SaaS provider could manage a protocol[0], or a protocol can just be an set of immutable contracts deployed on chain, or anything in between.
[0] https://aws1.discourse-cdn.com/standard21/uploads/shinedao/o...