Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

termanatorx t1_j9ynx2z wrote

Just spitballing but even asking them to verify doesn't stop someone from claiming it's broken and just not verifying.

What about reversing the payment system and having them pay premium and receiving a small rebate each year they verify? That would definitely handle the problem of faking that it's broken to avoid fees, and might incentivize people also to repair if broken rather than paying for that and then also paying a fee to use it another year. Just thoughts...


shanoshamanizum t1_j9yobst wrote

The core idea is to have the user rewarding the producer not the other way around. The user has no incentive to break it or fake it because it will get returned to the producer. If it's truly broken both sides lose - the user loses the product, the producer loses potential 40-50% profit over the next 4-5 years.


termanatorx t1_j9yojup wrote

Ooooh. Good you clarified that. It's not clear in your initial post.


shanoshamanizum t1_j9ypsho wrote

It's evolving as we speak and as we discover corner cases.


termanatorx t1_j9yr6ql wrote

Nice. I think return of product if not functional is a great idea. And, you may have thought of this of course, the producer could then refurbish and sell again. I'm thinking of Amazon warehouse deals where products with flaws are sold at discount. I bought something there. Granted it was new and not refurbished, they do also have options to buy refurbished on there I think.