The article suggests that you could use a “web3” library to lend out a car. Later, it describes how lending is secured:
> So let’s imagine Lisa wants to lend Bob her $10 item.
> What if Lisa could send Bob a smart contract that asks Bob to deposit $15 in the contract?
> This means that Bob would never be incentivized to steal the item, because he would lose more than the item is worth.
So if I want to borrow someone’s car I’d presumably have to send them money exceeding the value of the car itself? If I want to rent someone’s spare room I’d have to place a deposit worth more than the room and every item within it?
This stuff is so confusing to me because it seems to be solving the wrong problem. The difficult problem with lending someone something isn’t knowing that I’ll get it back: if they steal it I can call the police. Or I can get insurance, like Airbnb offers hosts. Or, hell, take the same principle and just get rid of the smart contract part: want to rent my car? Give me $20,000 for a few days. A startup offering that service would fall flat on its face but because crypto is involved somehow the idea is valid.
The difficult part is the actual meatspace stuff like coordinating meeting with the person to hand it over. The article promises that I can “upload your items to Junto and let them make money for you while you sleep” but my expensive kitchenware item isn’t going to ship itself over to someone else’s kitchen.
(also: maybe a minor aside in the grand scheme of things but describing this as a library feels particularly cringeworthy: libraries are free at the point of delivery and are a great societal good. What’s described here is “Airbnb for stuff”)