First of all part of the reason most of the above cited buybacks don't result in any reasonable long term financial benefits is that when a typical fiat company buys back stock, they don't burn it.
When MINEUM buys back it will be burning the tokens, which will increase the value of each token that shareholders have and receive for POS staking. Those fiat companies could at anytime, dump those bought back shares and even if they don't, it's still a totally different animal.
Considering the article's restaurant analogy, it just doesn't take the scenario far enough to apply to a company like MINEUM. What needs to be said in relation to removing tables in the MINEUM restaurant, is that not only will it equate to more people sitting at each table, but will also increase the price of the food that will be guaranteed to be bought each month (worst case only bought through buyback). It's almost as though the guests know that the chef will be burning some of the food each night and the food that he doesn't burn will be worth more.
The next effect of the process that wasn't illustrated by the article is that the shareholder owned MINEUM restaurant will now be enabling the longtime holders that would like to stop eating at the restaurant a chance to do so.
Also, a transition removing shareholders from the table equation enables the restaurant some nice advertising by now becoming eligible to be located in better locations (Bittrex for example) and land the project at an extremely high position in relation to price increase (% increase on exchange main pages) for the public to see. Perhaps offering token holders healthy discounts on some type of MINEUM services would be possible.
As many have previously stated, regardless of how long the ROI actually is, the existing model needs a boost.
Maybe a buyback will offer a nice little kickstart to push the food out a little faster, tastier and to more customers that would like to perhaps take advantage of hosting services and all things MINEUM.
The only place where burned food tastes so good......
When MINEUM buys back it will be burning the tokens, which will increase the value of each token that shareholders have and receive for POS staking. Those fiat companies could at anytime, dump those bought back shares and even if they don't, it's still a totally different animal.
Considering the article's restaurant analogy, it just doesn't take the scenario far enough to apply to a company like MINEUM. What needs to be said in relation to removing tables in the MINEUM restaurant, is that not only will it equate to more people sitting at each table, but will also increase the price of the food that will be guaranteed to be bought each month (worst case only bought through buyback). It's almost as though the guests know that the chef will be burning some of the food each night and the food that he doesn't burn will be worth more.
The next effect of the process that wasn't illustrated by the article is that the shareholder owned MINEUM restaurant will now be enabling the longtime holders that would like to stop eating at the restaurant a chance to do so.
Also, a transition removing shareholders from the table equation enables the restaurant some nice advertising by now becoming eligible to be located in better locations (Bittrex for example) and land the project at an extremely high position in relation to price increase (% increase on exchange main pages) for the public to see. Perhaps offering token holders healthy discounts on some type of MINEUM services would be possible.
As many have previously stated, regardless of how long the ROI actually is, the existing model needs a boost.
Maybe a buyback will offer a nice little kickstart to push the food out a little faster, tastier and to more customers that would like to perhaps take advantage of hosting services and all things MINEUM.
The only place where burned food tastes so good......
More of nothing is still nothing.
If restaurant serves food that is not tasty, even if you leave only one table, no one will eat there.
If you want to remove all "Shareholders", I guess you are not one of them - what was ICO then? Free "loan"? and if you move to better neighborhood but your food is still "not tasty" - only the view from empty restaurant changes.
"As many have previously stated, regardless of how long the ROI actually is, the existing model needs a boost."
And this is exactly what I am talking about. But real boost, based on real value - not artificial. As long we won't be attractive - it will be the same story. How team plan to do it - I never got an answer. We see that current ideas bring us till now to +- 1% a month... and almost zero trading activity... and price bellow ICO after almost a year and... and people that their only hope is to sell at ICO price... etc. So something need to be changed, again only for my opinion, and as I don't see that team doing something in this direction, that's up to community helping them do so, if they care and I believe they do.
As this coin take very
non proportional time considering it's weight in my portfolio, I will leave those conversations for admin's relief. Hope I explained my point to the ones who wanted to understand. Bright future to all.