My initial reaction was to reply, "I'm not paying for a service that charges me when other people lose their goods." But that's exactly what every company does, they just don't call it that.
Next, I wanted to say "I'm not paying for a service that blatantly charges me for that." But that's not right either.
I just...I don't understand this level of complexity. This may be the Dalio fever speaking, but is this what "radical transparency" means? The customer gets to know about every financial detail of the products they're casually using?
Most consumers don't want or need to know about everything that goes in the dog food. We know some of it's bad. We don't want to shop around various services for the best "insurance to profit" ratio or something. No one does that for health insurance, let alone video rental insurance.
The beauty of modern consumerism is that you see one number - a price. That can inform every decision the consumer makes. The informed consumer (i.e. the one with more free time) may dig into the details, but ultimately everyone has certain items when they really, really don't care about the company or the quality - they just want the best price.
This behavior allows the individual to shed a lot of cognitive load and stop thinking about things that they don't want to think about. It also represents a lot of what's wrong with consumerism today
You should really work on refining your idea. Consider this it's first exposure to oxygen. Maybe I'm 100% wrong too. Good luck.
create a peer-to-peer rental system where customers
mail DVDs directly to the next renter
Beyond the glaringly-obvious privacy implications, how would the DAO actually enforce this? What's to stop Devious Dan from mailing an empty envelope to Bob and then claiming that Bob stole the DVD?