Are you kidding? If they could get 250,000 coins at .0001 (which they won't be able to), it would only cost 25 BTC. That's a 100% profit on the 50 BTC given to them. How can you turn down 100% profit? Maybe syscoin will generate more than that, but who know? Then only 250,000 coins will remain so you will get double of every BTC they generate. Understand?
I understand. But spending 25 btc for coins worth 25 btc on the current market (set by the buy wall) isn't exactly profit for the asset fund. It is profit if looking at it from the perspective of the initial money given them, of course ... although it's more profit if they simply didn't buy any QBK at all with the buy wall.
Burning them like proposed is an interesting thought. But you are just assuming that will equate to a higher valuation of the coin afterwards. I agree in that it should result in a higher valuation due to rarity being increased, but we can't say for certainty that will occur. It just seems like too big a chunk of their ico money to spend, at least in my opinion.
I'd go with a multipool and perhaps some stabilization using funds, but I wouldn't go crazy with it just yet. A buy wall could always be used as a last resort.
You're not thinking about it correctly. It is a 25 BTC profit. They short sold their own coin at .0002 and are buying it back at .0001.
You don't get those opportunities that often. It's a good one.
Also, a multipool might work if there are a number of supporters, but judging by how quickly people are jumping out the window to get away from this, I'm not even sure it will pay for itself.
edit: For instance, if they bought the whole coin back for 50 BTC, they would then have the entire coin back + 50 BTC profit. Does that make it easier to understand?