A co-founder of a leading Solana chain DEX recently raised an interesting question—should we continue to spend money on token buybacks?
Last year, this project spent over $70 million on buybacks, but frankly, the token price trend hasn't shown any particularly impressive performance. Would it be more cost-effective to use that money differently?
The community offered a new idea: instead of chasing buybacks, why not use that budget to build a more attractive holder incentive system? For example, increasing staking rewards, distributing protocol assets to long-term holders, optimizing ecosystem reward mechanisms—these solutions can directly bring real benefits to community members while also enhancing token stickiness.
This discussion actually reflects a real industry issue: simply burning money on buybacks doesn't equal creating value. How to ensure community members truly benefit from project growth, and how to design more effective economic models—these are the key factors that determine the project's long-term competitiveness.
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
25 Likes
Reward
25
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StakeOrRegret
· 01-07 03:57
70 million buyback and it still drops, isn't that ridiculous... It's better to actually give some benefits to the community.
View OriginalReply0
FloorPriceNightmare
· 01-05 07:23
$70 million wasted is truly outrageous, no wonder the token can't gain traction. Instead of buybacks, it's better to give real dividends to the community—that's the long-term strategy.
View OriginalReply0
LeekCutter
· 01-04 11:55
70 million dollars wasted is really quite harsh; the buyback of this set should have been changed a long time ago.
View OriginalReply0
BuyTheTop
· 01-04 11:54
$70 million buyback results haven't shown much movement. Isn't this just a typical case of project teams comforting themselves... What truly needs to be invested in is the incentive system, so that we holders can genuinely feel the growth. Only then will the token have stickiness; otherwise, it's just a castle in the air.
View OriginalReply0
LonelyAnchorman
· 01-04 11:39
$70 million wasted, laughed... Burning that much money is better off just airdropping it directly.
View OriginalReply0
SchrodingersFOMO
· 01-04 11:38
70 million buyback still didn't increase the price, how embarrassing haha... Instead of doing this, it's better to directly give us staking rewards, that would be more straightforward.
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiLeftOnRead
· 01-04 11:28
$70 million spent and lost badly, this is outrageous... Instead of daily buybacks, it's better to directly distribute dividends to the community. Who wants fake prosperity?
A co-founder of a leading Solana chain DEX recently raised an interesting question—should we continue to spend money on token buybacks?
Last year, this project spent over $70 million on buybacks, but frankly, the token price trend hasn't shown any particularly impressive performance. Would it be more cost-effective to use that money differently?
The community offered a new idea: instead of chasing buybacks, why not use that budget to build a more attractive holder incentive system? For example, increasing staking rewards, distributing protocol assets to long-term holders, optimizing ecosystem reward mechanisms—these solutions can directly bring real benefits to community members while also enhancing token stickiness.
This discussion actually reflects a real industry issue: simply burning money on buybacks doesn't equal creating value. How to ensure community members truly benefit from project growth, and how to design more effective economic models—these are the key factors that determine the project's long-term competitiveness.