How is making a separate token preferable to just increasing or decreasing the price of the rental? Perhaps there are some people who have unlimited ride passes that aren't paying on a per ride basis? However, in either case, it seems like less hassle to build the incentives into the current billing system rather than create a token (which also could have significant price volatility).
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
95% of people get the yearly pass. It could all be in a normal database instead of blockchain. I guess there is no advantage to decentralization in the situation.
Even if they created a decentralized token, its underlying value would depend entirely on their centralized bikeshare.
This consideration came up in the latest Let's Talk Bitcoin episode over Venezuela's El Petro. El Petro is apparently a NEM token that derives its value from an undeveloped oil field. While the token may be decentralized, it seems crazy to trust the corrupt ruling party to deliver on the backing.