That seems plausible—but I don’t know how this would work if there wasn’t any transparency about who was given money back, so I’m not sure how to avoid #3.
And For #2, I think the point is that this isn’t a payout for disaster, it’s a temporary solution to replace savings. Once they are back on their feet and able to donate, I’d think that paying a larger part into the fund makes sense. But I agree that it’s a different vision than using this as pure insurance.
A lot of these choices seem unnecessarily punitive to me, not sure.
That seems plausible—but I don’t know how this would work if there wasn’t any transparency about who was given money back, so I’m not sure how to avoid #3.
And For #2, I think the point is that this isn’t a payout for disaster, it’s a temporary solution to replace savings. Once they are back on their feet and able to donate, I’d think that paying a larger part into the fund makes sense. But I agree that it’s a different vision than using this as pure insurance.