A lot of their concerns, on r/ethtrader, for example, don't make any sense so you know they must be trolling.
ICN has always been a profit-sharing token. The switch from dividends->buyback & burn did not change the fact that it's still a profit-sharing token.
All the sudden people are very "concerned" about the fact that it's a profit-sharing token with no use other than to share profits?
It doesn't make sense to suddenly be concerned about something that has been the case ever since we first read the whitepaper.
They make sense to me, and to others agreeing with them.
It is not simply the case that they are a group of trolls who are all working together, to crash the price. That's just an easy way to dismiss them.
It's not really an issue of who is right, or who is wrong. If you can't refute their arguments in an equally convincing fashion, then you're going to lose the debate, and the token will lose value. Simple as that.
"Oh, they're just the same trolls from February" isn't a valid rebuttal. You WILL lose this argument, if that is all you have to say.
To that end, you need to be encouraging the team to respond to people's concerns. If you think the concerns are provably bullshit, then have Tim (yes, Tim!) publish a post which addresses the concerns head on. It really is that simple. Until then, people are just going to assume that there's no response other than "lol, trolls! Just ignore them!"
You are HARMING the price by dismissing these concerns as trolling.
What is your current position on what ICN represents? Is it a share in the company? Do you receive any rights, or rewards, by
holding the ICN (share)? Is there any recent, official word on this? Buybacks in the old economy work because the share has value in the form of rights/rewards. Reducing supply is NOT a factor which drives value on its own.
If I hold two lumps of dog shit, and burn one, the remaining lump of dog shit is not instantly worth twice as much. Or whatever fraction is applicable to the total supply of dog shit.
Until people see an official word from the team, which puts these concerns to rest, they will continue to harp on these issues, and you dismissing them as trolls will not stop them.
People may have to read between the lines on some of this stuff due to regulations. If the team makes a blog post that clearly spells it out: "ICN tokens have value because all of the profit Iconomi generates will always be distributed back to ICN holders" then they would be admitting to breaking this part of the Howey test:
It's obviously not a share of a company (a stock). There's no legal framework to allow anonymous token holders to be the owners of a company.
I think they hired at least 1 new law firm after the ico ended, who may have advised them to be more careful about the language they use and the promises they clearly spell out for investors (or maybe we should start calling them contributors like the other ico's do in order to appease the regulators).