BREAKING: The UAE announces it will cuts funds for citizens who want to study in the UK out of fear of Emirati students being radicalized by Muslim Brotherhood Islamists on British campuses. An Arab state now views a European state as a dangerous Islamist radicalization hotspot

The most successful projects from this cycle actually messed up their charts and users with their automatic buybacks. The early cycle darlings like $HYPE, $ENA, and $JUP topblasted many millions at frankly ridiculous prices on a fair multiple basis. This led to many retail fomo buying these tops (price drives narrative) and getting rekt. All of the founders of these projects drank too much coolaid of this self-reinforcing thinking the multiples were justified. After months of decline and no clear path to the previous high prices, some are blaming the mechanism saying “price keeps correcting from the previous (too high) level, buybacks dont work”. This is just as wrong a statement. How many times do we relearn basic economics truths from hundreds of years of financial markets? Sure if there isnt enough to pay developers to build then dont spend the limited funds on tokens. But once there is success and consistent revenue— as a holder what is even the point of the token if there is no dividend or buyback or at minimum super clear financial utility? I propose a more nuanced solution to this “to buyback or not” discussion- Buyback amount that depends on the price is a good target— If price is cheap you want to buyback as much as you can as you can have a huge % supply taken out. When market is too hot slow it down. Some founders more comfortable with traditional buyback decisions made my the CEO/management can do it ad hoc (like, you know, real companies have always done). But there are programmatic ways for more decentralized protocols to do it if transparency and predictability or legal concerns are a priority— One simple way is to use a calculated price to earnings ratio. It can be designed by each protocol to suit its specific details. One potential example- Take an ema of revenue (decide the half-life of time that makes sense) Annualize this as your earnings number Every day/block of revenue— if the token price that can be achieved with the buyback is a PE ratio of under 4 buyback 100%, if 4 to 6 buyback 75%, if 6 to 8 buyback 50%, if 8-10 buyback 25%, over 10 dont buyback. All revenue remainder that gets kept goes to buybacks on buying dips that just looks at price ema. Eg buyback from this reserve at a speed that increases when the price is at very low levels of the last 90 day price ema. This helps plunge protection. Yes this proposal takes a bit of sophisticated financial engineering compared to all or nothing buybacks, but after the failure of things like web3 gaming, web3 social, metaverse and the like, it should be clear by now that crypto is finance and finance is crypto. If you are a serious project and dont have a finance expert on your time thats fine but you should at least the use a top external advisor or specialized firm to assist. If Jupiter or other team with high revenue want me to help design something like the above for them I’ll do it for free, you can reach out.

Oh. So voting isn’t the answer?

Alot of drama on $XPL losses on CT. Gives me signal to buy now meaning I have to wait at least 2 more days before actually longing. Try it sometimes. When you think you have to short/long wait more and see. Alternatively scale in slowly if you cannot resist the urge.

This isn’t a builder vs. Token holder battle. There wouldn’t be funds for building without the token. The funds can easily pass through the DAO and be distributed to whomever including Aave labs. The problem is the fact token holders have funded the builders and instead of having control over the benefits of that funded work, receive nothing.