LOL this just makes this blockchain look inferior and badly coded.
"There's a hole in the roof we need to fix that"
...
"Let's fix it by buying back rain" ...
"Ok well the hole is getting bigger and we're all drenched.."
"SHUTUP AND KEEP BUYING BACK RAIN!"
My analogy is not exactly fitting but isn't this no different to when regular companies buy back their stock in a desperate attempt to get their evaluation to look attractive again?
No, it's not like that at all.
No analogy is perfect and they should often be avoided, IMO, but if the complexities of the actual mechanism are too complicated, here's a simplifying analogy: it's like the stabilizer can make widgets for $1, then sell them for considerably more than $1, and then it returns the profit to the DHF.
It is price manipulation by the people buying widgets for more than $1. They believe they can find a greater fool to sell those widgets for even more than the excessive price they're paying for them. That's not our fault or concern. We can make widgets for $1 and sell them for $1.50, so we do. Anything else would be foolish.