#代币经济机制 Seeing this discussion about Jupiter, I am truly shocked. $70 million spent on buybacks, yet the price remains largely unchanged—this is not an isolated incident but a deep-rooted dilemma faced by the entire industry.

The key issue here is: buybacks themselves are not wrong, but if the ecosystem is filled with structural selling pressure—team unlocks, high-frequency emissions, continuous sell-offs—then no matter how much is bought back, it’s like trying to fill a bottomless pit. It’s like you’re trying to suck water through a straw, but the water keeps leaking out through the holes.

I most agree with Anatoly’s approach. Instead of sticking to traditional financial methods like buybacks, it’s better to embrace the unique advantages of Web3—transform protocol revenues into assets that can be staked and yield long-term returns. Imagine users locking in one year of JUP to earn real protocol asset returns. Such an incentive mechanism is not only more transparent but also capable of truly filtering long-term believers. This is what decentralization should be about.

Additionally, Kyle and Jordi’s suggestions are also very interesting—dynamic buybacks, PE ratio references, algorithmic execution—all pointing to the same core logic: don’t rely on a single method blindly, but adjust flexibly according to market conditions. Actively buying when prices are low, remaining calm and observing when prices are overheated—these strategies are smarter than blind buybacks.

In the long run, a truly healthy token economy should be based on retaining people with real protocol value, rather than relying on various "stabilization" tactics. This discussion offers a reminder to the entire industry—it's time to rethink the essence of token design.