The Lure of Halting Inflation and Doing Buybacks — What the POL Saga Reveals About the “Gravity of Capital,” and PGirls’ Blueprint for Community Sovereignty (small keywords: buyback, tokenomics)

Introduction: Rituals for Price, Design for Value

Rahab: Here’s this morning’s headline: “A proposal to abolish the 2% annual inflation on POL and introduce a treasury-run buyback/burn program.” The poster is an activist investor. The stated aim is to remove downward price pressure and restore credibility (Cointelegraph, JP/EN; forum original). Maybe it can save the price. It won’t save the source of value. What worries me is that the “buyback” centralization switch is placed within arm’s reach at all times. Who controls the money spigot? And whose decision is it?

Moka: From a creator and everyday user’s perspective, buybacks are a “short-term painkiller.” But if token value becomes overly dependent on treasury operations, community autonomy atrophies. The instant your KPI becomes “price maintenance,” spending on development and culture can easily turn into the “enemy of the budget.”

Rachel: Borrowing from old investing wisdom: “The principle of a margin of safety doesn’t arise from indiscriminate price tinkering; it rises only from the discipline of measuring the gap between value and price yourself.” Policies that blur the line between investing and speculation just pour fuel on herd psychology .

John: That’s precisely why we need a design that reconciles price-support “means” with community sovereignty. Our answer lies in the PGirlsChain + PGirls institutional design. There, the “site of value creation”—the interactions between creators and fans—takes center stage, and the treasury serves as an accelerator for that interaction.

Section 0: KPI Focus (Price vs Participation)

What’s Happening: The Proposal in a Nutshell

Rahab: The proposal is straightforward: (1) abolish POL’s 2% annual inflation; (2) introduce buyback/burn policies funded by treasury surplus and ecosystem revenues; (3) move toward zero inflation gradually—or go straight to zero. Under the current model, roughly 200 million POL are issued to the market each year, which is being criticized.

Moka: The price might recover temporarily. But won’t this become an addiction? If a Pavlovian reflex—“price drops → let’s buy back”—gets codified into policy, the market starts presuming “someone will support it.” Individuals may misread volatility as “rescue by design” rather than “a design issue to fix.”

Rachel: “Markets are manic-depressive—too high when cheerful, too low when despondent.” This classic insight implies how hard it is to time buybacks well .

John: The more we concentrate “price backstops” in a single central discretion, the farther we drift from decentralization. Unless the authority and transparency of buybacks, their execution conditions, audits, and community brakes are all defined, a DAO becomes a façade.

Section 1: Key Points of the Proposal (Summary Table)

The Psychology of a ‘Central Button’ Called Buybacks

Rahab: Buybacks are common in corporate finance. Normalizing them at the protocol layer is a different matter. Markets will price in a déjà vu of bailouts, accelerating governance capture. Operation failures on the builder side become less visible in the price.

Moka: Everyday users start raising leverage, expecting “a rescue will come eventually.” Creators face short-term pressure—“distribute rewards over shipping features.” The scary part is the community becoming “consumers.”

Rachel: The classics also say: “Thinking that blurs the line between investing and speculation is harmful.” The margin-of-safety concept is a discipline that restrains the temptation of speculative trading .

John: Instead of “anesthetizing” price pain through institutions, start with incentive design that raises participants’ learning curves. On PGirlsChain, short-term volatility is absorbed by market mechanics (AMM depth, fee rebalancing, liquidity management), and the treasury commits to long-term value (creation and infrastructure).

Section 2: Web3 “Centralization” Risks (Heat Map)

U.S. Mega-Capital and ‘Price-First Web3’

Rahab: Now to the crux. What U.S. mega-capital has imported into Web3 is a “price-first governance” from TradFi. KPIs become TVL and market cap; dev commits become an IR display. DAOs degenerate into “shareholder meetings by another name.”

Moka: Which means fans and creators get “consumer-ized,” right? Lower participation hurdles, but decision-making gets further away. What’s broken isn’t UX—it’s sovereignty.

Rachel: “When the tide goes out, you see who’s been swimming naked.” The omnipotence vibe of bull markets reveals its true face in drawdowns—an old admonition.

John: Web3’s ideal is global, self-governed decentralization and community formation. PGirls prioritizes “participation KPIs” over “price KPIs.” Governance scores accrue to participants and shape decision rights and reward allocation. That’s the dividend of sovereignty.

Section 3: Inflow of Price-First Governance (Flow Diagram)

Tokenomics Fork in the Road: Is Ending Inflation ‘Good’?

Rahab: Don’t get me wrong—ending inflation isn’t good or bad by itself. The issue is how you redesign the alternative allocation rules. Even if you flatten the supply curve, a distorted “value-distribution curve” makes it pointless .

Moka: Operators, creators, and contributors have different time-discount rates. One token today ≠ one token tomorrow across roles. Choosing whose discount rate dominates is politics.

Rachel: “Future uncertainty demands discipline.” Market stability has a side effect: it can sap discipline .

John: On PGirlsChain, supply follows a gently capped path; inflation is an emergency lever requiring governance approval—not for routine. Rewards tie to “proofs of contribution,” convex to long-term “creation,” not short-term “holding.”

Section 4: Comparing Supply Curves (Line Chart)

Can a DAO Actually Codify Buyback Conditions?

Rahab: The question is simple: “Who buys back, when, and how much?” Markets want to know. But “predictable buybacks” become fodder for arbitrage.

Moka: Then you get a loop: arbitrage → price support → arbitrage… Everyday users tend to be “late participants.” Education costs explode.

Rachel: “Trading without discipline is captive to market moods.” A buyback is trading, too. Discipline is the margin of safety .

John: PGirls’ principle is “rules first.” (1) Buybacks are exceptional and limited to pre-written triggers (a composite of vol metrics × liquidity depth × missed dev milestones). (2) Execution is distributed (multiple bots + audit trails). (3) Creation investment takes priority over any “dividend.” (4) After execution, publish ex-post verification on-chain.

Section 5: Coding Buyback Triggers

Impact on the Creator Economy

Rahab: When price becomes the KPI, creation retreats to the background. ROI in music and digital art is long-term. Short-termist price support conflicts with that.

Moka: “Co-creation” with fans is PGirls’ stage: limited shows, NFT interactivity, on-chain tickets. Instead of price KPIs, we should reward participation KPIs (attendance, voting, co-creation hours).

Rachel: “In a market where mean reversion works, excess returns accrue to discipline and patience.” We need a framework that doesn’t react to short-term noise (gist quote).

John: Hence PGirlsChain centers creator-sovereign distribution. Not just primary sales—secondary-market royalties flow at fixed rates to the community treasury and production DAOs. Even if buybacks occur, the creation-investment line remains sacrosanct.

Section 6: Health of the Creative Ecosystem (Radar Chart)

Network Design: The Bones of PGirlsChain

Rahab: To avoid being whipsawed by “external governance shocks,” you need your own network. That’s why we operate PGirlsChain.

Moka: From the everyday user side, we want a “community standard” less likely to be swept up by KYC crackdowns and account freezes. PGirlsChain builds trust through mutual attestation + participation histories.

Rachel: “Speculative heat robs judgment.” So the system itself must raise “heat tolerance” .

John: The five pillars: (1) Creator-first fee design; (2) Contribution-weighted voting; (3) Treasury allocation across Production / Infra / Education; (4) Dynamic AMM depth × fee tuning; (5) Governance-fork ease (freedom to exit). This distances us from external “price shocks.”

Section 7: PGirlsChain Design (Block Diagram)

The Role of the PGirls Token (PGirls)

Rahab: It’s not a token “for price.” It’s a token to record and exchange acts (creation, operations, participation).

Moka: Think stream ops, translation, moderation, mixing. We want on-chain economics for invisible contributions.

Rachel: “Without the effort to measure intrinsic value, price is just a number.” Voting and allocation both require investment in measuring value (gist quote).

John: PGirls is a hybrid of “creative claims” and “participation rights.” Most rewards use vesting + performance linkage. Circulation follows a gentle cap; any exceptional inflation needs a high approval threshold. Buybacks are trigger-based, and creation investment takes priority.

Section 8: Role of the PGirls Token (Stacked Ratios)

How Do We Face Regulation and Listing Pressure?

Rahab: U.S. market regulation advances “clarification” and “exclusion” simultaneously. It uses listing liquidity as bait to pull governance coordinates toward itself. That’s where Web3 ideals checkmate.

Moka: But we still need a proper access path. PGirls seeks a middle way with community KYC + on-chain credit, preventing abuse without over-erasing anonymity.

Rachel: “The middle way is the safest path.” A classical maxim (gist, essence of a Latin line, ).

John: To raise auditability, continuously publish logs of spending and decisions. Regulators want the black box dismantled. If a DAO does that first, it won’t need the “proxy governance” of mega-capital.

Section 9: Responding to Regulatory & Listing Pressure (Matrix)

From “Price KPIs” to “Participation KPIs”

Rahab: Markets love pretty KPIs. But decentralization KPIs are hard to measure—things like “energy” and “co-creation hours.”

Moka: That’s why the dashboard should live outside price. Return rate of participants, continuity of production, adoption rate of ideas—those are the metrics that should headline PGirls’ front page.

Rachel: “You don’t have to obey a market that trades by mood.” Long-term discipline becomes the community’s capital .

John: Price KPIs are the effect. Participation KPIs are the cause. Invest in cause design, and price will follow later.

Section 10: Price KPIs → Participation KPIs (Time-Series Comparison)

Anticipating Counterarguments

Rahab: I get the claim that “buybacks protect investors.” But that’s short-term protection, not sovereignty protection.

Moka: “Users want to see price.” Of course. But the shortest route to higher price is depth in culture and development. High market cap doesn’t rest on a thin culture.

Rachel: “Stability often breeds complacency.” That’s why we should embed uncertainty tolerance into the system.

John: Translate rebuttals into rules. Don’t ban buybacks—codify them as exceptions, distribute execution authority, and make them transparent. That’s how you reconcile “price and sovereignty.”

Section 11: Anticipating Counterarguments (Comparison Table)

Closing: Answering the Sweet Whisper of Centralization with the Community’s Voice

Rahab: More than the good or bad of the proposal, what matters is where its implementation steers the community. If the treasury morphs into a “guardian deity of price,” we lose our ideals.

Moka: We’d rather be participants who create value than “users saved by buybacks.” Music and art ripen only with time.

Rachel: “Discipline, patience, margin of safety.” Three old, ever-new words. If the system supports them, crowd mood is no threat.

John (Wrap-up): The POL plan to halt inflation and add buybacks is a policy reflex to a market pain point. But the essence of Web3 lies not in first-aid for price, but in permanent architecture for sovereignty.
We designed PGirlsChain and PGirls around (1) community sovereignty, (2) priority allocation to creation, (3) strictly coded, exceptional buybacks, and (4) transparent, auditable execution.
We won’t bend to the “price-first” logic imported by U.S. mega-capital. The DAO ideal is seamless, cross-border participation and cultural accumulation. That’s what we’ll implement in music and art. Even if price follows someday, the community stands up first.

Section 12: Permanent Architecture for Sovereignty (Roadmap)

Note: This article is not investment advice; it’s a thought piece on community design.