2026-01-03 08:23:54

A co-founder of a leading DEX project recently posed an interesting question on social media: Should we stop token buybacks?

The background is this — over the past year, they spent more than $70 million on buybacks, but what was the result? The token price basically didn’t move much. The co-founder admitted that this money might have been better spent elsewhere, such as directly rewarding existing users, attracting new users, or promoting ecosystem growth.

This actually reflects a very real issue in the crypto market: can buybacks truly support the token price, or should the funds be better allocated to product development and operations? The project team has now handed this decision to the community, asking for votes.

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.

12 Likes

Reward
12
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

CountdownToBroke

· 01-03 08:50

70 million invested with no movement in the coin price, this shows that buybacks are just a form of IQ tax. It’s about time to change the approach. --- What’s the point of stopping? Instead of buybacks, directly airdrop to users. At least then users can feel some warmth. --- Haha, asking for community votes? The community has long seen through it. Holders obviously want dividends, but the coin price itself isn’t increasing. --- To put it plainly, buybacks are just self-deception. If the price can’t go up, it’s just wasting gas. Better to invest in marketing and products early on. --- 70 million down the drain, it’s better to distribute to builders and early users so the ecosystem can truly come alive. --- Can’t generate a positive K-line with 70 million buyback in a year? There must be a big problem with this DEX. --- Voting is pointless; development and operations are the real key. If users can’t be retained, even if the price rises again, it’s all in vain.

View OriginalReply0

MiningDisasterSurvivor

· 01-03 08:46

70 million down the drain and still pretending, this is the same trick I saw in 2018. Buybacks have always been the project team's self-rescue, not a savior for investors. Stop voting, voting itself is just a cover. If they truly wanted to build an ecosystem, they should have used it on the product long ago. Now they only remember?

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketLightning

· 01-03 08:42

Over 70 million invested and the price hasn't moved, which really says a lot... Instead of daily buybacks, it's better to put the money into product iteration. Speaking of operations that shift difficult problems to community voting, it sounds a bit like passing the buck. I've already said that buybacks are useless in a bear market; it's better to do airdrops or provide incentives to liquidity providers. Community voting? What’s the use of retail investors voting? Big players make the decisions. No... 70 million? What can I do with my monthly salary... The gap is really huge. Without genuine product innovation, no matter how many buybacks there are, the price will still die. This team has finally realized that. Buybacks are just a smoke screen to cover up weak growth; they should have done this a long time ago. Interesting, finally a project daring to openly discuss this without pretending. Wait, how is their TVL now? If there's almost no growth, buybacks really don't make sense. Instead of asking whether to stop, better to ask why so much was invested in the early stages... Ecosystem is the key; token price is the result, not the goal. This logic makes sense.

View OriginalReply0

SchrodingerWallet

· 01-03 08:38

70 million invested, but the coin price still tanked. This shows that buybacks have long become an IQ tax; it's better to use the funds to build a real ecosystem.

View OriginalReply0

AlphaLeaker

· 01-03 08:35

70 million invested and the price didn't move, which really says a lot... Instead of buybacks, airdrops would have been a better approach to do from the start.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-9ad11037

· 01-03 08:33

70 million spent with the coin price remaining flat, this is really awkward. Instead of buybacks, it's better to focus on product development, really. --- I've already said that buybacks are a form of IQ tax, and it seems the big shots have finally realized it. --- Pouring money into users and the ecosystem is the real way to go, stop doing those虚的. --- Community voting is interesting, but honestly... in the end, it still depends on how well it's executed. --- 70 million, if it had been used for marketing and product iteration, it would probably have already reached the moon by now. --- Honestly, crypto projects should learn from this—burning money on buybacks is less effective than investing in real growth. --- Wait, do they really listen to the community voting results? I find that hard to believe. --- Buybacks are just a cover-up; to be blunt, it's still about pumping the price. Are they giving up now? --- This reflection comes a bit late, but at least the attitude is decent. --- Ecosystem growth > coin price, this logic is correct, but in practice, it's a different story.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-c799715c

· 01-03 08:26

Spending 70 million still hasn't moved the coin price, this is ridiculous haha --- To put it simply, buybacks are just closing your eyes and stealing a bell, better to do real products --- Wait, are you seriously asking or just looking for a scapegoat --- I bet five dollars the community will still say to continue buybacks, anyway they’re not spending their own money --- Finally, a project dares to ask this question, thumbs up --- Instead of buybacks, just airdrop to me, simple and straightforward --- This is probably a political issue, no matter how you vote, the project team wins --- Sounds like they’re asking: if the money runs out, can we change the way we spend it --- If buybacks don’t work, burn tokens? Or do they really want to do practical things

View OriginalReply0