Decentralized CoordinationCooperative Productionmedium
Open Catastrophe Captive Network
A network of companies, municipalities, and captives could use open catastrophe models and shared data standards to price selected property and climate risks transparently, pool retained layers cooperatively, and buy reinsurance only for tail layers that require large external balance sheets.
Thesis
Commercial insurance becomes less dependent on proprietary carrier models when risk modelling, exposure data, and pool governance are portable and auditable.
Bitcoin / decentralization role
Decentralization matters through multi-party governance and open model reproducibility rather than Bitcoin settlement. Members coordinate around shared model inputs, capital contributions, loss histories, and reinsurance placement.
Coordination mechanism
Members submit standardized exposure data, run agreed Oasis-compatible models, vote on pool rules, contribute capital to retained layers, and use brokers or administrators only where licensed placement or claims handling is required.
Verification / trust model
Model versions, exposure schemas, assumptions, capital contributions, and claim files are auditable by members and third-party administrators. Fraud is constrained by inspections, claims adjusters, member governance, and reinsurance due diligence, but not eliminated.
Failure modes
- • Adverse selection if higher-risk members join while lower-risk members leave.
- • Catastrophic tail losses may exceed cooperative capital and force dependence on traditional reinsurance.
- • Members may dispute model assumptions, exposure data quality, or claim allocation after a loss.
Adoption path
- • Start with a narrow property or climate peril where open models and objective exposure data are mature.
- • Form a captive or mutual pool around a retained layer and use traditional reinsurance for excess layers.
- • Publish model assumptions, governance rules, and claims performance so additional members can evaluate the pool.
Decentralization fit
7.0/10
The concept shifts pricing and governance toward member-controlled pools and open models, but still needs licensed administrators and reinsurance for many risks.
Coordination credibility
6.0/10
Captive and mutual structures already coordinate insureds, and open modelling improves transparency, but multi-party governance and capital calls are operationally difficult.
Implementation feasibility
5.0/10
The modelling layer is feasible today, while licensing, claims administration, capital adequacy, and reinsurance placement keep the full model complex.
Incumbent pressure
5.0/10
This would pressure fees, model opacity, and selected retained layers, but it would not immediately replace AIG's broad underwriting appetite or claims network.