Untitled topic • Hacker News Board

Re: undefined

#71

Post by scarface_74 » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:09 PM UTC

alegd wrote: post #15

hilariously wrote: post #4

My bigger question is how you would validate this isn't drugs because this seems like the perfect low effort way to send high value drugs.

[flagged]

This is completely different. While for Uber and AirBnb as the person delivering the service I have to worry about a private citizen either doing harm to my property (more statistically likely) or my person (much less likely), if I am pulled over by a cop carrying illegal goods I have to deal with the law enforcement.

Insurance can take of property damage.

My personal threat model is:

1. Law enforcement with qualified immunity and a “monopoly on [legalized] violence” .

.

99. Everyone else

Re: undefined

#72

Post by brianbreslin » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

The side that is most patient (e.g. the one likely to make money) is the one to start with. Once you build up enough on that side you can start being useful to the other side. The key is going to be whether or not this business model makes sense on unit economics too.

Re: undefined

#73

Post by themanmaran » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

As a personal nit, I really dislike the term "two sided marketplace"

It should just be "marketplace". The term implies the existence of a "one sided marketplace". But isn't that just a business? If I have a bunch of product on my shelves and I'm trying to sell it, I don't call that a one sided marketplace?

Re: undefined

#74

Post by duped » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:17 PM UTC

alegd wrote: post #15

hilariously wrote: post #4

My bigger question is how you would validate this isn't drugs because this seems like the perfect low effort way to send high value drugs.

[flagged]

Uber and AirBnB lied about their model as an end run around regulation.

Re: undefined

#75

Post by dpark » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:18 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #33

alegd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I note that both Airbnb and Uber marketed as "use part of something you're not otherwise using", and almost immediately became professionalized. Full time drivers. People buying apartments to let out. Maybe they wouldn't have worked without that professionalization? Which is of course not possible if you're going the "passing traveller" model.

This is the key thing. None of this “trust a stranger” stuff actually works out. Uber isn’t actually a rideshare. It’s a professional driver. Airbnb isn’t a room in someone’s house. It’s an apartment rental. GrubHub isn’t someone who picks up your noodles when they pick up theirs. It’s their job.

The courier model could totally work the same way. You want someone to drive your package from San Francisco to New York? Someone will happily do that. The trick is they will want to get paid. No one’s doing this stuff basically for free as a favor or to help OP’s company show a profit.

Re: undefined

#76

Post by CodingJeebus » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:21 PM UTC

il-b wrote: post #58

Beware of drug and cash traffickers. Unlike ride sharing, where the end user, the passenger, is responsible for everything.

Also sounds like something Ted Kaczynski would've been interested in using back in the day. It has all of the elements of a literal bomb delivery service: operates outside of the mail security apparatus, probably built on a shoestring budget so no background checks for the senders.

Re: undefined

#77

Post by solumos » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

"Focus on one side first" means get in your car and start fulfilling orders.

Re: undefined

#78

Post by dpark » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

ahhhhnoooo wrote: post #25

alegd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I think you are being too glib. The trust model is really different for small packages. Housing small amounts of drugs in objects is way easier and more likely than wrecking someone's airbnb. And the consequences are higher for the driver. You can insure an airbnb or trip. Are you going to pay for someone's legal fees when they get popped for being a drug mule?

The bigger problem is that being a casual package courier is not worth the hassle.

Let’s say someone doesn’t want to pay FedEx $70 to ship a box next-day from San Francisco to Portland, so OP arranges for you to do it and charges $35, takes $10 off the top and pays you $25. Now you are supposed to drive to random person’s house to pick up the package, carry it across state lines, and drop it off at someone else’s house. You have to deal with potential flakes on both sides of this transaction and risk of carrying who knows what the whole time. For $25.

Would you agree to do this job? And if not, would you trust your package with someone who would?

Re: undefined

#79

Post by solumos » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

themanmaran wrote: post #73

As a personal nit, I really dislike the term "two sided marketplace" It should just be "marketplace". The term implies the existence of a "one sided marketplace". But isn't that just a business? If I have a bunch of product on my shelves and I'm trying to sell it, I don't call that a one sided marketplace?

There are three-sided marketplaces, like DoorDash, etc:

Restaurant, courier, customer

Re: undefined

#80

Post by dpark » Mon, Apr 20, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

freeplay wrote: post #68

il-b wrote: post #58

Beware of drug and cash traffickers. Unlike ride sharing, where the end user, the passenger, is responsible for everything.

This was my first thought when I saw "travelers going between countries." You're going to have a problem getting carriers to sign up because they are assuming all of the risk. Unfortunately, "oh you don't understand - I got paid $27 by CarrierPigeon™ to bring this unmarked, brick shaped package into the country" just isn't going to fly with customs/feds.

I missed the “different countries” bit. Hell no.

OP, I hope you are on good terms with Trump, because you’re going to need that pardon.