KangAi Commune Has Always Had a 'Never Refuse Mutual Aid' Design—So Why Does It Sometimes Fail?

In the course of operating KangAi Commune, we have always held to a plain belief: since we are in mutual aid, the original intent is to help as many people as possible. So in terms of philosophy and mechanism, there is no subjective "refusal of mutual aid" on our part (refusing mutual aid does not mean the Commune withholds the mutual aid money; it means the other members do not need to contribute). In fact, KangAi Commune has a feature that has always existed but has not been well communicated: not only can healthy people join—many people with pre-existing conditions have corresponding aid societies too. Even friends who have already suffered a major illness, or have even had cancer, can, as long as they meet the conditions, find a mutual aid plan suited to them here and obtain a real opportunity for mutual aid. This is the "warmth" we take pride in.

Yet reality taught us a lesson: if these designs exist, why do we sometimes fall into mutual aid disputes with members? After deep reflection, we found that the crux was not "not wanting to help," but "not helping the right way"—that is, members choosing the wrong aid society. This mismatch is, in fact, somewhat inevitable.

On one hand, as we have reflected, the platform may have been lacking in its early guidance mechanisms, failing to convey complex rules to every new member in the most intuitive way.

But on the other hand, this is a "human weakness" shared by this kind of product: at the moment most people join an aid society, their mindset is often relaxed—even indifferent. Because risk has not yet materialized, people naturally lack reverence for the terms; only when risk strikes and they apply for mutual aid money do they read those few dry pages of terms carefully for the first time. Only then do they discover that the aid society they joined does not match their current illness in its scope of mutual aid.

This leads to an awkward situation: the platform acts in accordance with the rules, yet what members feel is the coldness of being "rejected." To address this contradiction at its root, we believe, the product design logic must be restructured, turning "passive rejection" into "proactive placement."

First, in product design we must abandon one-size-fits-all thinking. Going forward, our designs should fully anticipate the possibility that users will "choose wrong." Rather than rejecting an application at the claim stage for lacking the corresponding entitlement, we should make the mutual aid mechanism more flexible. For instance, for the scope of mutual aid of different aid societies, we could set up tiered entitlements instead of only the two extremes of "qualifies" and "does not qualify." This would let mismatched users still receive corresponding basic assistance; even if the amount differs, it would embody the warmth of mutual aid and reduce the drain of disputes.

Second, strengthening guidance throughout the entire lifecycle remains an inescapable responsibility. Since users only take the rules seriously when they apply, our guidance cannot stop at the enrollment stage. We need to use big data and smart reminders to keep providing "check-up"-style risk alerts and education at key points in the user lifecycle, helping members dynamically adjust their plans and ensure they are "matched to the right seat."

Trust in mutual aid is hard to build, yet destroyed in an instant. KangAi Commune is willing to face this problem squarely, adapting product design to human weakness rather than demanding that users be perfect.