Puss Coin Stability Mechanism When Users Participate In Governance

INTRODUCTION

Source

It is absolutely critical to prepare PUSS Coin for any voting changes made by users. The community’s engagement through its governance mechanisms ensures transparency and inclusivity, but it also brings challenges on the stability of the price. Decentralization in governance allows voting where there are concepts such as adjusting tokenomics, changing the supply and changing reserves and these have a big bearing on how the market values the token. That is why it is important to develop a governance mechanism that seeks to achieve stabilization while at the same time engaging users in the lace.

When users vote on changes, they should have the proper background information at their fingertips in order to understand the effects of making such decisions. A well-informed community can participate in more responsible decision making with respect to token economic model adjustments. Such changes include voting on inflation relieving measures, supply constraints or liquidity boosting designs. But at the same time the voting process should be structured to prevent large token holders or external actors from manipulating the voting and steers the voting towards the interests of the community.

Conducting such a voting process requires well organised structures that will put limits to the amount of community members participation which in turn will achieve the desired level of stability over time. Which aspects of the t’s are changed, modified or altered should be clearly outlined.

• GOVERNANCE-BASED SUPPLY CONTROL

PUSS Coin can maintain its value with governance-based supply control in instances where users are voting for changes. In this case, the circulation volume of the token can be raised or lowered by the votes of the community in case of excess demand or lack in the market.

Such imbalances can be addressed and a stable price maintained by constant inflation or deflation of tokens. For example, if internal demand rises, the community may vote on the creation of new tokens and if it declines, the community may vote on destruction of tokens and hence lower supply.

Nonetheless, a lack of proper regulations can enable abuse of this model. Large token holders may vote opportunities that suits them against the minimal votes of small token holders. In their place, a solution could see the introduction of a weighted voting system or quadratic voting where the number of votes a user has is dependent on the number of tokens held but little votes are relied on for the larger of audience which could enable a fairer voted process.

The advantages of the governance mechanisms of supply control are two as well: it allows the community to take part in the maintenance of the health of the token’s economy and offers an ad-hoc and clear-cut manner of mending the market.

• VOTING ON INFLATIONARY OR DEFLATIONARY MODELS

Another option for stabilizing PUSS Coin would be to let the users vote between an inflationary model or a deflationary model. An inflationary model permits a gradual and controlled increase in supply, which is beneficial in an expanding economy. A deflationary model lowers the supply of the token over a period of time and in turn the value of each token appreciates as it becomes rarer.

The main concern in this regard is to make sure that the community is willing to accept the long-term adverse effects of the two models. For instance, inflationary models can assist in growth but if left uncontrolled may result in devaluation of the token. On the other hand, a deflationary model will push the price up but will also have the opposite effect that no one will want to spend the token as they may expect that the token will just appreciate further.

Source

This kind of voting mechanism is able to help improve price stability since the mechanism takes into consideration the wants of the community as well as the current market situation. However, frequent switches to the model may lead to instability. Therefore, adopting policies that limit how often these decisions can be revisited may help maintain long-term stability.

• COMMUNITY-DRIVEN RESERVE MANAGEMENT

PUSS Coin could also be stabilized with the community reserves and give the users a vote on the management of the reserve assets that will go along in aiding the token value. It’s possible to utilize certain reserve assets like stablecoins or other cryptocurrencies to provide a cushion for scenarios in which the price drops too quickly or in situations where a price surge is too fast hence the tokens must be bought back or supply increased respectively. By allowing users to influence the management of these reserves, it makes it possible for the users to help guard any volatility in the coin that could result in unwarranted price movement.

For this to work, however, it is also critical that there be transparency in the voting process as well as structure in how the reserve assets are employed. As an example, the community might choose which a certain portion of the voting panel as the assets that should be put on the reserves as well as the size of the reserve. These assets will assist in further determining the parameters that would guide the reserves when to be used.

Meantime, such a system must be closely supervised in order to avoid abuses. Without such measures in place, large holders of tokens might be able to sway policies on the reserves’ management to their benefit, putting market equilibrium at risk. In order to avoid this, it would be necessary to construct voting thresholds or multi-signature approval processes in such a way that no one group can dominate other managerial procedures regarding reserves.

• VOTING ON LIQUIDITY INCENTIVES

At last, PUSS Coin can arrange for its price to be controlled thanks to the community’s vote on liquidity incentives. A liquid market is able to work smoothly because enough volume exists in a token that users can buy or sell without moving its price too much. This final function helps to stabilize the market even further. It is the combination of these two factors: offering liquidity and voting for a reward structure, that determines the biases of the community towards the requirement of providing liquidity.

One way to implement this is by allowing the users to vote on the extent and time of liquidity compensation. The low liquidity periods where sufficient numbers of people are necessary could increase the amount awarded, while the opposite is true for surplus periods. Providing liquidity is essential so that the community can help control the price of PUSS Coin while providing enough space so that the market can be active.

Source

CONCLUSION

To sum up, efforts to stabilize PUSS Coin using community voting should take into account the need for decentralization as well as the need for long-term stability. During the community engagement and expansion phases, specific strategies can be implemented like governance-based supply control, inflation/deflation strategies, reserve management, and liquidity incentives that would enable the community to address price stability challenges of the token directly.