They did what they had to do to turn this around. I think it came out a lot more expensive had they been more prepared and $50,000 is one whopper of a liability. Hopefully, they did some simulations for worst case scenarios.
One thing is, you have to require due diligence on the part of renters and vary coverage accordingly. Otherwise you just encourage carelessness now that the illusion of trust and safety is tarnished.
This fiasco might have dented their velocity but I'd say overall, better now than later. They now have a major asset, getting through a crisis. Now they need to bullet-proof it like PayPal's epiphany that their main business is not digital money transaction but fraud detection (because it can rock their bottom line and tank the business). For this you need hardcore engineers who can apply rigorous analysis to the problem of shady renters not more community guidelines.
One thing is, you have to require due diligence on the part of renters and vary coverage accordingly. Otherwise you just encourage carelessness now that the illusion of trust and safety is tarnished.
This fiasco might have dented their velocity but I'd say overall, better now than later. They now have a major asset, getting through a crisis. Now they need to bullet-proof it like PayPal's epiphany that their main business is not digital money transaction but fraud detection (because it can rock their bottom line and tank the business). For this you need hardcore engineers who can apply rigorous analysis to the problem of shady renters not more community guidelines.