If you were to really dispassionately analyze the transaction, lending something to a friend or acquaintance is predicated on there being enough social capital at risk in the relationship (or shared network) to insure things go well, or that you're made whole if they don't, along with a general knowledge their ability to cover potential loss. IMO codifying that into a financial relationship signals that you don't trust that reservoir of social capital, and in doing so erodes it. "Oh, I guess he doesn't actually trust me that much, if he's asking me to post collateral to borrow his truck".
back
It's not unclever - but you might misjudge the value of codifying social relationships if you're not targeting trust-less relationships.
1 comments
The idea is really starting from a core group of people who trust each other and then expanding that circle using the collateral mechanism for new entrants and then making the relationship less codified over time and more natural
The real value is in having an index of people you trust and all the things they’re willing to lend to you
I think as people gain trust over time the network effects start to become really valuable