Token buybacks is simple - apps generate revenue, and tokens are bought on the market Native token has: • Users - need the token to spend it on transactions • Stakers - hold the token to accrue rewards Buyback models typically lack that first group. Users often pay in another asset (like USDC), so there’s no native demand from usage—only from speculation or incentive programs. This leads to a common critique of native tokens: “Apps receive the token, then sell it—so it’s extractive.” But that misses the full picture. Users bought that token to use it. That demand is real, just happens at an earlier step. Another key difference: In native models, fee revenue flows only to stakers. That means the same level of reward can be sustained with less total revenue, compared to buyback models where value is distributed across all holders. So are Users of a token screwed? Well, are users of gas or dollars screwed? Similar to how there is some inflation in a healthy economy, having some opportunity cost to holding a non-staked token keeps the economy moving, and the network secure with enough staked. Too much opportunity cost is bad. The goal is that the economy is always growing more than the inflation. Solana blockspace will more than 105% increase this year, over 100% more than the 4.6% token emissions. The ecosystem is also taking off. Buyback can add other incentives. Things like holding reduces fees on the app. Typical businesses are really restricted on how they could issue assets related to their business. It's great to see projects explore token models Internet Capital Markets