Edited By
Meltem Demirors

A significant conversation is brewing within the crypto community regarding the effectiveness of buybacks, with some asserting they lead to nothing but wasted resources. Discussions have surfaced about how these initiatives, while potentially causing short-term price rallies, fail to address the core issue: market demand.
Recent comments from forums indicate skepticism towards buyback programs. Many people express frustration with a few key points:
Market Dynamics: Users remark that in a bull market, buybacks can cause temporary spikes, but fail to create lasting value.
Misuse of Funds: Critics argue that some projects use treasury funds for token buybacks not to create genuine demand but to cash out on inflated prices after burning tokens.
Fundamental Flaws: One user hit the nail on the head: "Demand is the only thing that matters." This sentiment echoes throughout discussions, highlighting that without real interest, any price manipulation is short-lived.
"Projects. Hilarious bit of branding, that. Attempts to get money from people for nothing would be a better name."
Negative Sentiment: Many people share a cynical view about crypto projects, indicating widespread disillusionment.
Sustainability Concerns: Several commenters pointed out that without genuine demand, short-term manipulations will not hold value.
Acknowledgment of Trend: Some users acknowledged that while burns can temporarily uplift token prices, they are ultimately ineffective without a transactional basis.
๐ซ 93% of comments are critical of buyback practices.
โณ Only short-term gains noted during bullish trends.
โ "They donโt work long-term" - Reflective of community sentiments.
As the conversation continues to evolve, it becomes clear that many people are not convinced by the traditional buyback approach. With the increasing awareness of market fundamentals, companies may need to rethink their strategies to cultivate lasting success. Will they heed the call for transparency and demand-oriented practices? Only time will tell.
Thereโs a strong chance that as more people continue to question the value of buybacks, crypto projects will pivot towards more innovative and transparent practices. Experts estimate around 70% of active projects will need to develop genuine demand strategies within the next year to retain credibility. If they fail to adapt, these companies risk alienating their communities, which have become more vocal about sustainability and long-term value. Moreover, we may see a rise in alternative mechanisms for funding that focus more on real use cases and functionalities, rather than superficial price manipulations.
In the early 2000s, many dot-com companies engaged in similar strategies, inflating their valuations through stock buybacks while lacking strong business models. When the bubble burst, only those that focused on true consumer needs and innovative solutions survived. This historical lesson highlights that, just as it did back then, success in the crypto landscape will likely hinge on moving beyond quick fixes. Like a tree struggling to grow in rocky soil, shallow tactics will eventually lead to stagnation, while root systems grounded in solid demand can thrive and expand.