6. Supporting Members in Conflict Zones

One of the founding principles of our DAO is to be a community that truly stands by its members in times of need, regardless of who they are or where they live. However, from a practical and actuarial perspective, providing life and health benefits to members who reside in active conflict zones presents significant challenges—both in terms of fairness and financial sustainability.

Today, the DAO is still in its growth phase. At this stage, the collective fund and the underlying Benefit Multipliers (BMs) are designed to serve a broadly diversified membership base, where risks can be reasonably pooled and predicted. Including members in high-risk conflict areas directly into this pool would dramatically raise claim frequency expectations and reserve requirements. This would, in turn, force an increase in contributions or adjustments to benefits for all other members—something that would undermine our commitment to equitable treatment and mutual solidarity.

Nevertheless, our vision for the long term remains rooted in the belief that everyone deserves some form of meaningful protection, especially those in the most vulnerable circumstances. Once the DAO reaches critical mass—meaning it has achieved a sufficiently large and stable membership and accumulated reserves—we intend to address this challenge in a structured and transparent way.

The core idea is to at that time ringfence part of the reserve fund specifically earmarked for members in conflict zones. This would isolate the portion of reserves that corresponds to their membership and contributions. By doing so, we can establish a dedicated Benefit Multiplier Adjustment (BMA) that realistically reflects the much higher expected claim frequency and severity linked to living in conflict-affected areas.

This targeted approach has several advantages:

• It protects the fairness of contributions and benefits for members outside conflict zones, preserving the overall sustainability of the DAO.

• It allows us to extend at least partial, yet real, benefits to members in conflict zones, rather than excluding them entirely.

• It creates a transparent framework where higher risks are explicitly recognized, priced, and covered—rather than ignored or cross-subsidized in ways that could threaten the integrity of the entire model.

While we acknowledge that, under such a mechanism, the level of benefits provided to conflict-zone members may remain lower than those offered to other members, it still represents a meaningful promise of support. More importantly, it aligns with our fundamental purpose: to stand by every member as far as possible, rather than turning away when risks grow complex or uncomfortable.