While I think token buybacks are a bullish strategy for mature protocols in general, we must also remember that they are not the same as a stock that already has real value. When a company repurchases its own stock, it is reducing the total number of shares outstanding. In effect, buybacks “re-slice the pie” of profits into fewer slices, giving more to remaining investors. Scarcity drives up demand and price, making the remaining assets even more desirable. However, if we're talking about crypto tokens that lacks any real worth (let's be honest here, most tokens are for governance and speculation), a buyback won't magically make it valuable. Reducing the quantity of something that's essentially "worthless" is like burning monopoly money – you're left with less of something that was never truly valuable in the first place. The token needs to serve a purpose to create organic demand (additional utility). The closer mcap is to FDV (typically older tokens), the more sense it makes to buy back tokens. @lazyvillager1 writes that for new tokens with lots of unlocks in the coming years, it will be better to buy unvested supply from private investors and burn it. First of all, they could buy this back at a much lower price (maybe 50-80% off depending on how many years the tokens have left of vesting). Secondly, burning it will reduce the total supply and should be bullish in the future. Unsure if it is very bullish long-term though (other than bullish momentum as a news driven event which may last for days/weeks), as these tokens aren't a part of the circulating supply today. It depends how much people really believe in this token. To conclude, if the token is not worth holding in the first place, it doesn't matter what tricks you use. You see, there's no denying that a ball thrown into the air will, in the end, fall back to the ground.