The problem Physical Rentals solves

🧩 Problem Statement

In the physical tool rental market, trust and accountability are major challenges. Traditional peer-to-peer rentals rely heavily on manual inspections, human honesty, and centralized platforms to verify the condition of tools before and after lending. This creates risks such as:

Tools being sent or received in bad condition without proper accountability.

Disputes between lenders and renters about the state of the tool at different stages.

Lack of transparency and tamper-proof records regarding tool usage and damage.

No automated enforcement of rules or penalties for late returns or misuse.

These issues limit scalability, increase operational friction, and reduce trust among users in decentralized or peer-based lending environments.

Challenges I ran into

⚠️ Challenges I Ran Into

Synchronizing On-Chain and Off-Chain Data:
Ensuring consistency between blockchain state and external tool condition data (stored in Supabase) was a challenge, especially when validating claims from users.

Automating Loan Deadlines Efficiently:
Chainlink Automation required optimization to avoid scanning all loans on every check. Implementing a "next expiration date" logic helped minimize computation and gas usage.

Dispute Resolution Logic:
Designing a fair and transparent system to detect fraudulent condition reports or discrepancies between users and the system required multiple fallback mechanisms and checks.

Handling Multi-Role Interactions:
Managing different states and interactions for both the tool owner and the renter in a decentralized environment added complexity to both the smart contract logic and frontend UX.