What we learned
from the first indemnity

In February, the first mutual protection group had 16 active users and we were able to validate several hypotheses about group behavior and user experience, especially a surprise for us, which was the occurrence of two requests for reimbursement that were practically simultaneous. These reimbursement requests enabled us to validate hypotheses such as the reimbursement application process, the examination of the application, the application's approval, the member's reimbursement and the replacement of the group's fund after repayments, but we note that the most critical hypothesis was the voting process for reimbursement approval, since we realized that people did not like to be constantly called on to vote, it was then that we decided to reverse the voting system: abstention would approve a 100% reimbursement.

Just like in the traditional process, when a member of a Mutual.Life group requests reimbursement for some event in which the protected good has suffered an accident or material loss, this triggers the group to obtain compensation for the loss. In order for reparation to occur, the group must approve the refund, or even part of it. To do this, initially, all members of the triggered group would be called on to vote for each reimbursement request. This is because we believed that all members of the group, without exception, should vote on the request, and that the member who called the group would not receive its verdict before the complete voting of the other members. However, we found that people did not want to be called on repeatedly to decide on claims, and two one-time claims were enough to prove so.

In the beginning, however, it seemed obvious that all members should vote, however, when the first two events occurred and the applications for redemption applications were initiated, we at Mutual.Life noted that members were slow to voice the vote and there was a need to remind them of the need to vote and that this was delaying the whole process. To make matters worse, when we reminded those members who had not yet voted, many of them asked us: "Am I going to have to vote all the time? I do not have time to keep up with everything that happens". It became clear to us that the user experience in this process was bad and needed to change, but how? So, we started Mutual.Life's co - creation group and, after an interesting discussion, we came to the unanimous conclusion that it would be best to go the exact opposite way. Today, the refund request process is defined as follows:

1. The member requests the reimbursement stating what happened;
2. The group has 48 hours to possibly debate with the complainant member and state opinions wholly or partly against reimbursement;
3. After that, the group has another 48 hours to approve the full refund, in which case 100% of the group abstains, or partially, when one or more members vote for partial reimbursement;
4. The group then makes the reimbursement according to the result of the vote.

We now have to wait for the next "loss" to validate this important modification in the process. I hope to come back with good news soon.