Why Having the Aid Recipient Bear the Review Fee Is the Best Policy for the Interests of All Members

The Commune has zero barriers to entry. For a user, the most advantageous move is to join first regardless of whether they meet the requirements, then file a claim once the waiting period has passed. If the review fails, it doesn't matter—there is no loss, or very little; and if by chance it passes, it means a large sum of money.

So if we did not do this, speculators would swarm in, a flood of claims would appear, and mass reviews would be inevitable. If the review fees were entirely shared among members, every member would be crushed by the burden.

In the past we collected a review deposit; now it has become "the review fee is borne by the applicant." That is precisely the way to solve this problem. It raises the barrier to speculation and fraud. It is a breakwater, a protection for all members, and it safeguards fairness.

After a member passes the review, this cost is shared among all members by the Commune. For an eligible and honest member this can be counted as a reward, and it also keeps the contribution level of all members under control.

This is a positive institution. Conversely, if we did not do this, the Commune would become a paradise for speculators, and "bad money driving out good" would occur: it would be flooded with opportunists and would inevitably become unsustainable.

I hope members will think this over carefully.

Some members say that from the recipient's point of view this is unreasonable. But what would be reasonable? This rule was not introduced after a recipient fell ill; it was established long ago. If you meet the joining rules and the aid criteria, why would you worry about failing the review?