> Second, Opendoor explicitly charges sellers for having replaced total uncertainty with a bank wire: not just the same 6% that typically goes for buyer and seller agent fees, but also an additional 0-6% for “market risk” — i.e. dealing with the uncertainty of actually showing and selling the house — along with the aforementioned repair costs.

So basically, the seller is guaranteed to lose 6-12% (on average 8%) of the value of their home even before receiving a paycheck. Why can't OpenDoor start low, instead of starting high and waiting for economies of scale? I just don't see the marginal benefits worth the extra costs, and am not sure how OpenDoor can stay competitive enough with those rates.

> To succeed, it has to price the homes it buys accurately, without seeing them, and it has to sell them quickly to minimize the costs of carrying them.

I feel like if the people behind OpenDoor can do this, then they can do day-trading or at least an index fund. (Yeah I know, stocks are more volatile and housing is pretty much guaranteed to rise.)

> for too long too much money and talent has been poured into low-risk digital-only businesses

What? Isn't there hardware startups?

Ok overall, I think I'm being a bit too critical on this company because all I see is house-flipping disguised as "theoretical arbitrage opportunity". I'd rather see a new company solve the housing crisis in San Francisco and New York.