⚠️ Buybacks in crypto – and here's something many teams are trying to ignore 👇 Jordi Alexander (founder of Selini Capital) says that the hottest projects of the last cycle actually destroyed their own charts due to automatic buybacks. $HYPE, $ENA, $JUP have spent tens of millions of USD buying Token at prices far exceeding their true value. The price increase supported the narrative, causing retail investors to FOMO and buy at the peak only to "crash"; founders were also caught in that cycle, believing that the high valuation was justified. After months of price declines and failure to return to previous highs, some teams have concluded that buying back is not effective. @gametheorizing argues that this conclusion is fundamentally wrong. The problem isn't with the buyback itself, but with how the buyback is implemented. When a project doesn't have enough money to support developers, don't burn Capital buying Token. But once it has stable revenue, holder have the right to ask: what are Token for if there's no buyback, profit Chia , or clear financial utility? 💡 Jordi's proposed solution is a price-dependent buyback strategy, not an all-in approach. Buy aggressively when prices are low to effectively reduce supply; slow down when the market is overheated. This can be done manually, like traditional companies, or through an automated, transparent mechanism. For example, based on P/E ratio – when the P/E ratio is low, use most of the revenue for buybacks; when the P/E ratio is high, gradually reduce or stop. The retained revenue is used to buy when prices fall sharply, helping to mitigate the effects of significant crashes. 👉 Jordi concludes: crypto is ultimately finance, and finance requires discipline. Buying back isn't wrong; the problem lies in making buybacks without thinking. What do you guys think of this perspective?