That seems like it'd work, but I'm not sure what is gained by replacing Kickstarter with a smart contract (as opposed to replacing Kickstarter with a centralized alternative)
The advantage would be avoiding the 5% Kickstarter fee + (according to Wikipedia) 3% to 9% payment processor fees. The computation fees charged by the blockchain are presumably well below that. [On the other hand, maybe they aren't. Calling this suicide function on the Parity multi-sig wallet apparently cost 27 cents. If the crowdfunding contract is more complex, and submitting a payment costs, say, a dollar, then the average contribution would have to be on the order of 10 dollars to break even vs. Kickstarter.]
You can save the cost of Kickstarter by removing the value Kick-start adds. You get a smart contract that can't be executed because no one decides if the project delivered properly. How is that an improvement?
> no one decides if the project delivered properly
Same as Kickstarter. They release the funds to the creator after a certain deadline, after which they do not get involved in deciding whether the project delivered. Which is what I wrote above.
EDIT: I should add that I do very much agree with the general point you're not making: Smart contracts are only smart inside the closed world of the computer system running them; they don't magically know things about the "real world", and they cannot affect the "real world". I agree that many smart contract aficionados act as if they didn't understand this basic point. That's why I deliberately chose the Kickstarter example, which is also a system that does not make guarantees about the real world once payments have been made.
In this case, the smart contract aspect seems more like effective marketing rather than a technical advantage. This business could be operated identically with a centralized system.
Yeah it's definitely been done more for marketing but Axa's CEO is on record as saying he thinks the blockchain and smart contracts will have a lot of valid use cases in the insurance industry.
I suppose in this case the nice thing with the smart contract (assuming it works as advertised) is it's simple and verifiable. You know you'll get an instant payout if publicly available data shows your flight was delayed > 2 hours (regardless of reason). There's no human in the loop and no signed contract with weasel words that gets AXA off the hook from paying.
Sounds like a very roundabout way of doing things. I guess AXA feeds flight data onto the blockchain, you need to trust their data, and somehow pre-register the flights you are going to take with the contract?
I haven't used it but according to their FAQ, the smart contract uses publicly available flight data from multiple government sources to determine if a flight is delayed. The payout is based solely on that and the decision is out of Axa's hands (their website specifically says: payout regardless of reason for delay, including alien attack).
You can sign-up for the cover up to 15 days before departure. Apparently you input your flight number and credit card details. If the flight ends up being delayed more than 2 hours, their smart contract triggers an automatic payout to your card, no questions asked.
