Let's talk about buybacks, I've had a deep impression over the past six months. The underlying logic driven by the market capitalization multiple in the cryptocurrency industry is whether to buy first or later. Repurchase is just a narrative method, and it is difficult to become the main narrative. The two narratives most closely related to buybacks are revenue and control financing. The former is the hottest narrative of the past six months, but it should be noted that the correlation between income and market value does not require repurchase triggers. After so many years, there are not too many people speculating on income data, and the most obvious one is BNB. The main purpose of controlling fundraising is for the team to collect chips and pull the market, but generally there is a lag in the repurchase announcement, and when it is issued, it is likely to be exhausted, which belongs to narrative redemption. The best example here is Pump/Link. For the vast majority of projects with poor narrative, even if 50% or more of the circulating chips are repurchased without a matching narrative explosion point, there is a high probability of embarrassing situations such as Jup and Hnt. And a worse situation is: the team repurchased a lot of chips - the team waited for opportunities - the team ran out of money to protect the market - a black swan event occurred - both the coin price and the team's position were killed - they were forced to sell coins to recover costs. There shouldn't be too many examples from the past six months, it's not easy to name them one by one. How to solve it? From the perspective of income, it is natural that the more profitable the main business is, the better. However, besides quietly developing, the most important thing is to have a good reputation. Helping to calculate valuation multiples for companies like Pump and Hype, whose revenue is so good that they are all CT, is a way to build consensus. Another way is for the founder/team to constantly strive to speak out, the best example being Sun Ge. In this era, without attention, it is death. From the perspective of controlling funds, my understanding is that in the contract era, controlling prices, attracting funds, and pulling in offers are three things. Most projects with insufficient narrative can only play with contracts, which do not require much fundraising. It is better to control the price and pull the market. It is better for the project party to spend money to repurchase than to manufacture contracts against the market. For projects with a strong narrative, it is also difficult to attract funding. It is better to spend money on repurchasing than to think about buying shares and strengthening the narrative, at most accepting some goods for marketing purposes. This also shows that in the past two years, many projects in the bull market have gone straight up and down, without the complicated process of bottoming out and attracting funds. Spending the same amount of money to pull stocks is much cheaper than attracting funds, and the resulting effect will be better. The best example is Ena. I think there is only one type of project that needs to be repurchased to attract funds, which is when the market situation is very poor, there are some narratives but not enough, and when the price reaches an absolute low level, the market naturally changes hands, requiring a better chip structure and strengthened narrative. Or if the project party already has enough funds to absolutely control the fundraising, then it's better to buy and pull at the same time. So in my opinion, repurchases do not solve the main contradiction of tokens, but only serve as a way to stimulate the market. For so many years, participants in the cryptocurrency industry have believed in value speculation, and the most effective way for the secondary market is still storytelling and buying. As for buybacks and general value investments, that's all there is to it.