Is buyback and burn a sacrificial ritual for liquidity? When cryptocurrency prices decline, many projects habitually resort to "buyback and burn," as if this can reverse the trend of entropy increase. If we peel away the self-deceptive grand narrative, we find that many buybacks are actually a physics fallacy of trying to step on one foot while trying to climb another. Distinguish between two types of buybacks: 1. After the business is running smoothly, profits overflow and feed back into the tokens; this is a closed loop in the economic model, the way. 2. Because there is no ability to generate revenue, the only way to maintain the illusion of consensus is to burn reserve funds. This kind of buyback is essentially using real money to replace one's own air. In the current market of severe liquidity shortage, cash flow is the only certainty, while air tokens are often uncertain. Consuming valuable, certain assets on meaningless market maintenance instead of continuing to invest in technological iteration or market competition is a deliberate dimensional reduction. When a project starts to deplete its treasury through buybacks in an attempt to "save itself," it is essentially admitting that, apart from pumping the price, it has found no better place for its funds. The outcome was: the money was gone, the price of the coin couldn't be held, and in the end, the project team and retail investors were both left bewildered.