The concept of scarcity due to limited supply is a consensus on value. As long as enough people recognize it and more people join in, the price can keep rising. Many stocks undergo additional issuance; when a company plans a new project but lacks funds, it needs external financing, which dilutes early shareholders. Buyback and burn is a very clever design. Dividends often lead to situations where holders don’t reinvest their dividends, causing a significant amount of money to flow out. From an overall perspective, buyback and burn is the best option. For individual holders, they might have already gone all-in and need dividends for daily expenses, so the candy-like incentives from $BN play that role. The remaining two Chinese bosses don’t cut it. One canceled dividends and buybacks under the guise of preparing for an IPO, while the other directly issued a large amount of shares to themselves. Of course, if you’re an early investor, you’re still making a killing—it’s just a matter of how much depending on the choices made. But these two set a bad precedent: whenever their interests are at odds, they change the rules. This is not decentralized at all. When various project teams start copying this behavior, selling off their own tokens and then rebranding to launch a second one, it’s a problem. If the project still grows and performs well, they just keep printing tokens out of thin air since developer permissions are in their hands. The market has truly lost its appeal. I don’t think it’s much related to the increasing number of fruit-stand girls becoming female KOLs. The real issue is the loss of profitability—there are just too many scythes out there.