I disagree that counteracting dilution doesn't have any value to shareholders. I'd also add that even the more aggressive buybacks that are realistically designed to artificially increase stock price technically do provide a value to existing shareholders (that's why boards approve them), but I agree you can generally provide more value through other means (but often in a longer timeframe).
Again, counteracting dilution is not. And at the end of the day, you can call it fake if you want, but it increases the stock price, and if I'm a stockholder, I now have more value, so your point is totally semantics (and again, I'm not a fan of big stock buybacks since they're generally short-sighted).
Even if you buy this, it has to be true that 90%+ of the time its better to declare a dividend and give direct cash to shareholders. AND if they think the shares are undervalued they can reinvest their dividends. It'd be interesting to see if companies that engage in buybacks have ever done any kind of analysis or if there is 3rd party data on what % of shareholders would have bought back if instead a dividend were declared.
Inspired by some Bloomberg's guest's non-specific comment regarding mainland companies:
Yes indeed. Remember most relevant crypto outside of bitcoin use chainlink for one or multiple reasons: Oracle for hybrid smart contracts (ethereum, polkadot, zilliqa, solana) Orcacles for dynamic nfts, verifiable random function for gaming, aggregated price feeds, and proof of reserve (rumor: fidelity), so not only does chainlink provides value for strictly blockchain companies, it also provides value for regular companies looking to facilitate transactions onto the blockchain. Over time, this separation will become more apparent in the market, especially with implicit staking on the way.
That Sergey talk today was revolutionary. Chainlink Keepers now live on mainnet. The announcement of CCIP. Its happening right in front of our faces
Are you worried about the new legislation surrounding crypto and block technology?
