For example, I came across this 'APX ventures', who are using a buyback system too, but their approach is different:
Quote
70% will go towards market buys on exchange
20% will go towards buy support @ 10% below market price.
10% will go towards the APX Liquidity Fund (ALF) which will held as BTC off-exchange, available for anyone to access if they wish to convert their APX for BTC without disrupting the market.
All APX acquired through this process will be verifiably burned.
20% will go towards buy support @ 10% below market price.
10% will go towards the APX Liquidity Fund (ALF) which will held as BTC off-exchange, available for anyone to access if they wish to convert their APX for BTC without disrupting the market.
All APX acquired through this process will be verifiably burned.
Source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByqyVzIU5PtFLXp2UGZPcUFYd1U/view
The liquidity fund idea is interesting, but I'm mainly drawn towards the fact that they will offer market buys, as well as buy support.
I'd be interested in people's thoughts on this approach - is it better or worse? Has this been discussed on the slack at all, or with the team?
Such breakdown won't benefit this fund, IMO.
A company should always aim to buy back its stock at the lowest possible price:
1. more shares are burned for the same amount of cash
2. solid support level below market price reduces volatility
3. it also brings stability and provides confidence
4. buying at market artificially inflates price and when buybacks are done a dump will follow. 20% won't hold that.
5. the fund ends up overpaying for its stock - which is a loss basically
The "liquidity fund" is not a new concept. Again, a company is likely to end up paying more than it could have paid - BTC x-rate is still tied to the market so the price should include some premium to attract sellers. We have a "free market"-style transparent exchanges, why should we use tools from another era?
Correct me if I'm wrong, let's discuss it
