Recently, I had a casual chat with the founder of a project, and we discussed token design. I asked a key question directly: Have you considered doing buybacks and burns for your token in the future?

His answer was quite honest. The general idea is that they are not inclined to spend money directly on burns or buybacks. Instead, they prefer to allocate those resources to brand building, technological iteration, and expanding influence. The goal is to grow the market size first, and the token price will naturally rise along with it.

Coincidentally, in the past few days, the community has been discussing JUP's buyback plan, and the underlying logic behind it is actually the same.

Ultimately, buybacks and burns are micro-adjustments on the supply side. They are indeed beneficial for long-term investors, but honestly, these are never a "one-click market manipulation" tool. Conversely, market promotion and incentives are bets on demand explosion. When effective, they can lead to miraculous growth, but when they fail, the decline can be very sudden.

To be honest, there is no standard answer to this question. Over the years, everyone in the crypto space has understood one thing: the market doesn't care whether you're right or wrong; it only cares about one result—price going up is the hard truth.