Why does this matter? How is it any different if they use bank wires or BTC to scam?
If it's so hard to enforce the contracts, they won't be popular.
I don't understand how that addresses the question at all.
The entire point of smart contracts is they are self-enforcing. You're either talking about a conventional scam (which has nothing to do with De-Fi) or you're talking about broken contracts, which I already addressed:
The big problem for now, besides volatility and the problems of DAI-like stablecoins, is that so much money is going to be lost to bad code and unreliable smart contracts. This stuff is nowhere near prime time. So when I talk about this stuff, I'm talking long term, like decades from now. And that's if this all isn't just empty hype and the whole sector doesn't fizzle out.
This is just an implementation detail of a database, but how would the ID itself work? How can you trust it, when it's possible and even easy to obtain biometric data and document scans.
You are drastically overstating things. I am quite sure you have absolutely no experience procuring usable documents and actually thwarting identity verification systems.
First of all, stealing biometric data and verifying in a multi-tiered authentication system is not easy. That's fucking ridiculous.
Usable KYC documents are also far more difficult to obtain that you are representing. There are millions of useless documents on the dark web, sure.
Your position is essentially this: "it's so easy to steal identities that we can't have identity verification systems." Don't you realize, that's an argument against all identity verification systems? It's not a valid argument to use centralized instead of decentralized systems. You haven't established why centralized systems are superior.
You can trust a decentralized system for the same reason you can trust a centralized one, because trusted third parties (like your bank) are attesting to the data. This is about who controls and stores the data.
Maybe it could be solved with a web of trust, but that still means relying on third parties, it's just that you'll have a bigger choice of them. As the result, identity frauds will still occur.
Some degree of fraud will always occur in lending. You realize that, right? Pointing out that crime is possible isn't a legitimate argument against anything.
You know what won't occur with decentralized ID? Large scale hacks like Equifax where data on 150 million people is stolen at once.
I already mentioned reputation-based systems as another possible basis for unsecured credit. I also already said:
I'm also not sure that the goal is to completely remove third parties. After all, part of the value of digital ID is that you can have a third party attest to the veracity of your ID, without requiring you to reveal sensitive information at the time.
Nothing you're saying is an argument against decentralizing identity systems. You're only arguing against the basic idea of identity verification. That's rather futile since identity verification isn't going away.