Quote from: welshminer on June 08, 2017, 08:34:50 PM

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

I can't say if you're wrong or right. Got to factor in that crypto is full of noobs, markets are irrational, etc. too.

I would suggest that it's no more artificial than placing the orders on the buy side, as support. Or just the idea of reducing the supply in general.

You might be right that it would cause dumps afterwards, though.

On the liquidity fund... I suppose one advantage would be an extra place to sell, if we're still stuck on Kraken, or whatever, without causing dumps. I just thought it was an interesting addition. I don't necessarily think Iconomi should implement it.

As an amusing side note (regardless of which is right or wrong) if Iconomi's original plan was to buy straight from the market, and I popped in saying "Hey guys! Maybe Iconomi should just place support bids instead! What do you guys think?" ... I BET YOU most people would disagree with me Tongue