Is Jup's buyback actually effective? Why does everyone seem to be complicating a simple issue? Let's look at the inequality: Buyback liquidity + natural buying pressure < Liquidity consumed by insider trading + natural selling pressure + Token unlocked market value + External liquidity withdrawal + Team operating expenses. If this inequality is satisfied, the token price will fall. If the buyback volume is negligible and insufficient to change this inequality, yet you expect the token price to rise, doesn't that assume retail investors don't understand elementary math? Buybacks If buybacks are evenly distributed over time, from a market-making perspective, isn't this an extremely rigid and inflexible market-making method? What if there's information leakage, and a large amount of insider trading surrounding the buybacks? If the buybacks themselves aren't enough to overwhelm all opposing positions, the liquidity from the buybacks can easily be consumed. This involves the issue of capital utilization efficiency, specifically the efficiency of capital allocation for controlling the token, pumping the price, buybacks, and manipulating the market in different market scenarios and with different themes. This is a rather dynamic situation. The Jup project team has comprehensive data, and they believe that buybacks are ineffective, meaning they are insufficient to reverse the inequality. It would be better to let the price drop to a reasonable level, like other market manipulators, and then engage in flexible and cunning market making. This would be more efficient in terms of capital utilization.