In fact, I am not optimistic about this form of mutual assistance: the first is the lack of supervision. The CIRC said that the mutual aid plan is not mutual insurance. The implication is that you can do it yourself, and this stall is not in my charge. The profit model of the platform is still unclear. Water Drop Mutual Aid claims that it has not been profitable for five years and has not been withdrawn from the fund pool so far. So we can foresee that in five years? When a member goes out of danger, it costs money to start claims, verify the situation, operate the platform and have a call center! Commercial insurance companies add operating costs to premium accounting. Mutual aid plan is not insurance, but it has the nature of insurance, which requires it not to go bankrupt easily. But the company's unprofitable situation is difficult to maintain. There is really a small mutual aid platform burned out. I don't know what to do. Everything is unknown. The platform's pricing of membership risk is too rough. Take the mutual assistance of water droplets as an example. The mutual aid plan for serious illness is divided into two grades, namely, middle-aged and elderly people, which is equivalent to establishing two fund pools. The incidence of elderly people is definitely higher than that of young people, but the premium rate of critical illness insurance at the age of 50 is twice as high as that at the age of 20, which roughly means that the risk rate at the age of 50 is twice as high as that at the age of 20. Then why did I vote for this when I was 20? Obviously unfair to young people. With the aging of members, the number of resumed members will decrease, and the problems may become prominent, and even the plates may go bankrupt. In addition, up to now, there has not been a case of compensation for the water drop mutual aid platform, which stems from its long waiting period of 180 days. This can really prevent adverse selection, but a platform established in May may have no members waiting. Claims are slowly emerging, and then look at the situation of the platform. The data information is opaque. This is a fatal thing for areas that lack supervision. At present, Didi Mutual seems to have not announced the situation of the fund pool, including the amount, custody and the like, nor the age composition of the members. It is only said that the claims will be strictly announced, but this is not good for consumers to understand the operation of the platform. There can be no e-rental treasure with a pool of funds, let alone money laundering and insurance fraud. The capital risk lies with users, but the supervision is opaque to users. The Internet platform is mixed, and it is hard to say whether it will run away. Don't think the plate is big. It still needs institutional constraints, otherwise the e-rental of the cross-platform industry will come out in minutes.