I replaced all the times you mentioned buyback in your argument with dividends.
The exact same argument could have been applied anytime to the dividend model, so it makes ZERO sense that this is suddenly a huge concern unless you are trolling.
Wrong.
Dividends are a flow of income, which means the token has value. If I know 10,000 ICN will net me 1 ETH per month (for the sake of argument), then I have incentive to buy and hold 10,000 ICN, and ICN's value is driven by that fact.
In the old economy, buybacks are potentially a better option than dividends. In this particular case, everything I (and others) have said, has shown that they are an inferior option - UNLESS somebody from the team can prove otherwise.
Replacing one word with another is not an argument, and my post makes no sense after you have done so. E.g. a whale can't keep ICN at 20 cents each, if the token is able to pay a guaranteed income stream to its holder. That would be insane, and there would be a lot more incentive to RAISE the cost of the token.
You're clutching at straws.
Please encourage Tim Zagar to address these issues. You are not doing a very good job of it yourself.
Edit: Your "borrow a dollar" fix only works in the case of dividends. It does not work in the case of buybacks. Sorry. You are not intellectually equipped for this discussion. You are talking rubbish.
You are talking rubbish and dancing around the fact that the same amount of profit gets distributed either way.
It's funny, every time I destroy your troll argument, you get frustrated and resort to personal attacks.