snkns and yaksbeard bring up some good points and do a good job of playing devil's advocate. If you read closely, you will see that one of their motives for so adamantly expressing their concerns now is obviously to get buy orders filled before the flood of good news: product releases, marketing campaign, increased transparency.
Note: Quoted portion has been rewritten while I was responding:snkns and yaksbeard bring up some valid points as they play devil's advocate. One motive for a lot of people choosing to express their concerns so adamantly at this time could be to create uncertainty in an attempt to get buy orders filled before the flood of good news: product releases, marketing campaign, increased transparency.
That could be true, but why do people always assume an ulterior motive? Are you trying to get your sell orders filled?
Why must it be dismissed as "devil's advocate"? Because the team can do no wrong, and your perspective is already accepted as the correct one? ... You could just as easily conclude that their concerns are genuine, and have nothing to do with trying to manipulate the price. You already attempted to accuse me of the same, and I know you were wrong about me (because I am me), so why should I believe you are right about them?
As for the rest, I understand what you mean, and what you're trying to communicate with regards to dividends/buybacks. But using cold, hard math to compare the two isn't enough, especially in crypto, and especially when it's a sudden move from one method to the other, in a blog post that doesn't even acknowledge that the first option was ever promised.
We can put this to one side though, as some people obviously like the idea, and some don't, so we won't reach a consensus there.
Consider a couple of things though: In a traditional company, do you think investors would all be 100% happy if they were promised dividends, and then the model was suddenly changed? A key factor in both cases is that a lot of people like to hold, and not have to worry about going back to the market in order to realise any profit.
Would the ICO have been as successful if buybacks were in the original pitch?
Would the price be where it is now, if buybacks were the original method?
Would the price be where it is now if buybacks were announced 3 months ago? Or before the December 28th "delay"?
It's all speculation, of course, but it's good to look back and view the overall picture, rather than just take things as they come.
I'm not saying for certain one way or the other. But my personal opinion is that a buyback model would NOT have appealed to the same number of investors at that time, and the price would be much lower now, as buybacks would have been less appealing while waiting for the platform release etc.
You may think otherwise, but it's still worth thinking about things like that.
I recognise that anyone who bought into the ICO (and most people who bought after) are free to sell at a profit right now, if they aren't happy. And that's a good point to remember. But these guys are going to just keep flipping shit on you, if you keep letting them, and eventually it might be you who loses out, because too many people get sick of it and dump on your head.
The true believers will become the bagholders if it all goes wrong, and that's why you need to be more of a pain in the team's ass
(lol @ the avatar)
