Stabilizer Discourse Discussion Template
Use this format to structure discussions and encourage clear, actionable community conversations.
1. Discussion Title 
Format: [Category] Topic Name — Brief Context
Examples:
[Protocol] Emergency Depeg Fees — Should We Adjust the Activation Threshold?[Risk] Adding New Stablecoins — Assessment Framework[Feature] Limit Orders — Technical Feasibility & Community Demand
2. Context Section 
What: Explain why this discussion matters right now.
Include:
- Current state (what exists today)
- The problem or opportunity
- Why this matters to the community
- Any recent events/data that triggered the discussion
Example:
Current State: Stabilizer supports USDC, USDT, USDS on Ethereum.
Opportunity: Community has requested expanded infrastructure and additional features to improve capital efficiency.
Why It Matters: Scaling Stabilizer requires thoughtful expansion aligned with community priorities.
Trigger: Capacity available to explore new directions.
3. The Question/Proposal 
What: State the core question(s) clearly. Make it easy to answer.
Format:
- Main question first
- 2-3 supporting sub-questions
- What decision/outcome you’re seeking
Example:
Main Question: What should Stabilizer prioritize next: additional stablecoin pairs, enhanced liquidity mechanisms, or new UI features?
Sub-Questions:
- Which would provide the most value to LPs and traders?
- What are the technical and risk considerations?
- What’s the implementation timeline for each?
Outcome Sought: Community consensus on priorities.
4. Analysis/Data Section 
What: Provide facts to ground the discussion.
Include:
- Quantitative data (volume, TVL, user counts)
- Qualitative research (community feedback, user interviews)
- Trade-offs or considerations
- Sources/links
Example:
Community Feedback:
- Beta survey (4,000 responses): 78% want more stablecoin pairs
- Discord discussions: LP incentives mentioned frequently
- User interviews: Security and capital efficiency are top concerns
Market Data:
- Current TVL: $X million
- Daily volume: $Y million
- User base growth: Z% month-over-month
Trade-offs:
| Option | Value Add | Complexity | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| More Pairs | High | High | 6-8 weeks |
| LP Incentives | Medium | Medium | 3-4 weeks |
| Gov Features | Medium | High | 8-10 weeks |
5. Proposed Options/Paths Forward 
What: Present 2-3 concrete paths forward.
Format:
- Option name
- What it means
- Pros & cons
- Timeline/effort required
Example:
Option A: Expand Stablecoin Coverage
- Add complementary stablecoin pairs to existing pools
- Pros: High community demand, diversifies trading options
- Cons: Risk assessment required, liquidity fragmentation
- Effort: 6-8 weeks dev + risk review
Option B: LP Incentive Program
- Deploy incentives to attract deeper liquidity
- Pros: Faster TVL growth, simpler execution
- Cons: Sustainability questions, governance overhead
- Effort: 3-4 weeks setup + ongoing management
Option C: Governance Framework
- Launch community voting on protocol direction
- Pros: Aligns incentives, decentralizes decisions
- Cons: Slower decision-making, requires infrastructure
- Effort: 8-10 weeks design + implementation
6. Discussion Prompts 
What: Specific questions to invite thoughtful replies.
Include:
- 3-5 open-ended questions
- Encourage different perspectives
- Ask for expertise/lived experience
Example:
Discussion Prompts:
-
For liquidity providers: What would make you provide more capital to Stabilizer?
-
For traders: What stablecoin pairs would be most valuable to you?
-
For risk-conscious community members: What safeguards matter most as we expand?
-
For long-term builders: What feature would make Stabilizer indispensable?
-
General: What would you prioritize and why?
7. Implementation Criteria (If Applicable) 
What: If this leads to a decision, what needs to be true?
Include:
- Success metrics
- Risk mitigations
- Governance thresholds
- Timeline
Example:
If we choose Option A (Expand Stablecoin Coverage):
- Success Metrics: $50M TVL in new pairs within 90 days, >5K daily traders
- Risk Mitigations: Full risk framework assessment, security audit, gradual rollout
- Governance Required: 60% community vote on new stablecoins
- Timeline: 4 weeks risk review → 6 weeks dev → 2 weeks audit → go-live
8. Related Discussions 
What: Link to relevant existing threads.
Format:
Related Discussions:
9. Call to Action 
What: Make it clear what you want from the community (e.g. poll).
Example:
What We Need From You:
Vote: React with your preference (
Option A, 
Option B, 
Option C)
Discuss: Reply with your perspective. What matters most to you?
Share Insights: If you have data, user feedback, or risk considerations, please share.
Timeline: Discussion closes Friday EOD. Community vote opens Monday.
Example Full Discussion:
[Protocol] What Should Stabilizer Prioritize during Mainnet?
Context
Mainnet is live. Audit complete. Community feedback shows strong interest in expanding Stabilizer’s capabilities. We want to make sure we build what matters most to you.
The Question
What should Stabilizer prioritize next: additional stablecoin pairs, LP incentives, or governance infrastructure?
Analysis
[Community feedback, market data, trade-offs table]
Proposed Options
Option A: Expand stablecoin coverage - more trading pairs
Option B: LP incentive program - deeper liquidity
Option C: Governance framework - community voting
Discussion Prompts
- What would make you use Stabilizer more?
- What’s your top priority for the protocol?
- What safeguards matter most as we expand?
What We Need
- Vote with emojis ( A, B, C)
- Reply with your reasoning
- Share any relevant insights or data
- Discussion closes Friday, community vote next Monday
Need Help with Discourse?
For tutorials on how to use Discourse features (polls, formatting, threading, etc.):
Everything you need to participate is documented there.
Benefits of This Format:
Structured: Clear progression from context → question → options → decision
Inclusive: Everyone can understand and contribute
Data-driven: Facts + opinions = better decisions
Action-oriented: Clear next steps and voting mechanisms
Asynchronous: People can read/reply on their own time
Archival: Searchable, referenceable record for future decisions
