1) The cost to me is invisible. I don't know or care what their cut is. I see a rate and pay it.

2) I also get some benefits including online scheduling and pay by credit card.

3) There is an unspoken stigma because it would be a cost-saving measure for the parents but more of a hassle for the babysitter. Would the sitter get more money? Maybe a little? But they wouldn't usually suggest it for the risk of getting tattled on and getting kicked off. Parents might also have this risk. Most good sitters are always booked through the service in SF, so what is their upside?

We've had a number of babysitters (found via family, recommendations, and job boards), and scheduling is incredibly annoying. We usually have to plan at least a week in advance, and even then there's no guarantee that our sitter is available.

I'd absolutely use a service that connected me to a professional baby sitter who is available tomorrow evening, and I'd pay extra for the flexibility.

(Vetting is also important. We are really happy with our current sitter, but in my experience it's really hard to know in advance)

It also kinda hurts that the isolation of people is seen as financially viable. I would argue, but with very little to back me up, that there is an intangible (and perhaps a tangible) benefit from closeness to those we associate or do business with, that we are losing.

As an introvert, I appreciate that there are services that isolate me from unnecessary contact with people.

Where I live, taxi drivers often try to strike up conversation and get "friendly." Not only that's awkward and uncomfortable for me, here it's also generally not very safe to indulge in chitchat with strangers (you can get marked for scams, muggings or worse.)

But I have no problem whatsoever interacting, and have zero social anxiety. Need me to talk in front of a group? Sure! Meet new folks? Great! And I genuinely enjoy doing these things. But it burns a lot of mental energy to do so. I need quiet alone time, too, and a lot of it.

I say this not to make anyone feel bad about social anxiety, but rather to try and make people not feel like introversion is a defect. It is not, in any way, shape or form. So seriously, don't beat yourself up about feeling introverted, if that is how you are. Anxiety is a different beast, and working on that will help. And if you get it under control, and still enjoy an introverted lifestyle, that is 100% OK, normal, and healthy.

Either he's driving without commercial insurance (very risky) or most of his savings from Uber fees are going towards the same.

The savvy players on the provider side use these companies as a lead generator. Once they've got a new lead, they switch to their private services and they've got a 30% price advantage by cutting out the middleman.

Throw in cash / under the table billing and there's no way to compete against the direct provider. The best part for the providers is they don't even have to advertise the "off the books" offer. Every consumer knows it's there and they seek it themselves.

I have the feeling that the large-scale implementations of sharing use this social interaction as a ground to grow small businesses which offer services to strangers. I'm okay with that, it makes everything more efficient and straightforward, but there's little left of the sharing part of the deal: Hey, why not use your car that would sit in the garage while you waste time to make extra few bucks -> lease a new car and work as not-taxi-driver. Have an empty apartment or go for vacation, let someone occupy it -> get a mortgage for 3 condos and run a totally-not-a-hotel. Tools collecting dust in the shed -> buy a few sets of commonly used powertools and lease it for $xx/day. Etc. "Sharing economy" now means that you cover all the expenses of running a business and share the revenue with the platform that brought you customers. There's very little actual sharing, but the economy works as usual.

I guess my point is: sharing works without intermediaries and there may be no money exchange to take a cut, "sharing" with the intent to make a profit inevitably leads to professionalization and requires the "sharer" to operate a regular business.

If they don't own it, they won't take proper care for it.

Consider a real estate website: They don't get a cut of the monthly rent, they just charge a single fee up front.

The value that these platforms provide is connecting customers with service providers, and this is what should be charged for. The value of the platform goes to zero as soon as the customer/provider know each other.

So here's an idea: maybe the platform should charge only for the first appointment? Sure, revenue per customer is lower, but retention is bigger -- people keep using your service, and next time they need someone on short notice, they will use your website again.

If you run a marketplace, you need to make sure your business model is aligned with your users. If it isn't, you'll fight an uphill battle.

For the most part, a car driver is the same as any other car driver, but a baby sitter, house cleaner, or dog walker is someone you need to trust with things that you care deeply about. When you find a good one, you'll be happy to pay a premium out-of-network wage to keep them.

A lot of the value we provide is up-front. We verified the providers so we know they perform services and are not LE. We will have verified health status periodically. So if you find someone using our system, that alone is a big endorsement right there. There are multi-million-dollar businesses that only handle that part (and only handle it to a lesser extent).

In the not-high-end range, I think scheduling alone is enough to justify using us. It's annoying to have to message a couple people and wait for their responses versus just having it all automatically booked. Security, too. Plus people are more likely to want to try something new and different.

I have to say, if I were totally anonymous and my ICO went well I'd probably renege on the whole thing. After all, why would I put myself in serious legal jeopardy by running a form of darknet market when I could just pocket the investors money secure in the knowledge that nobody will feel sorry for them?

These are not really tokens, they are dividend-generating shares that will optionally be recorded via ERC20 tokens. We are using the term ICO only because saying IPO or Blockchain IPO tended to confuse people.

We want to raise secondary rounds to really expand, and screwing Series A investors sounds like the worst way to achieve that goal.

See also Android (Google Play Store), where app builders are able to get to know their users (subject to some possibly controversial platform constraints).

Of course one can always do better for oneself by intermediating and rent-seeking on a platform.

Insurance. Uber/airbnb/rover/etc. provide insurance for both parties. To me that's a critical value add - I want to know that if my dog sitter leaves some chocolate around I won't be out a few grand. The more important the task, the more likely I am to stick with an insured party.

The problem is that as far as I can tell, the maid agencies all use independent contractors, so while they will replace my stuff, I see no evidence they will cover the expensive thing.

I do think it is fundamental that an injured worker who was injured on the job is the employers financial responsibility. Anything else creates hugely inefficient externalities and unnecessary human suffering. Worker's compensation law is super important

If you get a worker that is working on a Dog Sitter platform and you've had an appointment or two with them, you're probably going to judge they're OK enough. The insurance is more of a first-time-per-person kind of thing. Same for renting out your house and so on: For the first meeting, yeah it's super important. After that, you'll probably know if you trust them enough to skip the fees.

You poor trusting fellow. That's exactly how they get you: pay a few months on time, then stop and live for free until you can evict them. Been there, had it done to me.

Example: Say I rent out my house and an electrical fire breaks out. Insurance company says "you were using the premises for commercial purposes at the time of loss and your policy does not cover commercial activity. We won't cover the fire damage." This is a very real possibility you'd find yourself in unless you specifically bought commercial/landlord insurance.

Insurance would be a killer, however, and we aren't ones to easily trust our kids with strangers.

I mean, a business accidentally creating closer, friendlier communities is great, but I think it'd still be a financial failure in the end, because once you've met all your neighbors with kids and trust them, you can just friend them on Facebook and say "Hey, can anyone watch Timmy while I run to the grocery?"

This is one of the reasons why those cleaning service companies like HomeJoy have floundered, btw.