Sabitlenmiş Tweet
This year exposed the truth: Buybacks only work when the numbers are real.
$1.4𝘉 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘢𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘢 𝘧𝘦𝘸 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦.
In crypto, cashflow isn’t just king, it’s the whole kingdom.👇
---------------------------------------------
Projects have spent a combined $145.93 million on average each month on token buybacks this year.
But, 𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐝𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨 𝐛𝐮𝐲𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬?
➢By removing tokens from circulation either via burns or locking, buybacks can create scarcity, potentially supporting or stabilizing price.
➢Revenue is used for buybacks, which reduces the token supply and gives holders a clearer connection between the protocol’s cash flow and the token’s value.
➢Some protocols accumulate tokens to use later for growth, incentives, liquidity, or strategic initiatives.
➢Repurchased tokens can be used for staking rewards or other incentives, encouraging user engagement and long-term holding.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐛𝐮𝐲𝐛𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐬:
---------------------------------------------
➢ @HyperliquidX (HYPE) has spent $644.6 million this year to repurchase 21.36 M HYPE which accounts for 2.1% of supply averaging $65.5 M per month.
HYPE token buybacks have averaged $65.50 million a month in revenue spending, ranging from as low as $39.14 million in March, to as high as $110.62 million in August. The average HYPE buyback price is around $30.18 so far.
The sheer scale and consistency created persistent buy pressure, compressed float, and indicates a revenue-backed tokenomics.
HYPE became the poster-child of the buyback system.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @Pumpfun (PUMP) has spent $138M to repurchase its token, $PUMP, since July this year which equals 3% of supply, the recurring buybacks are supported by platform revenues.
Pumpfun has spent an average of $40.47 million per month to repurchase PUMP.
They converted their memecoin launchpad fees into recurring buys, They turned speculative hype into a recurring supply sink which helped stabilize price and reduced circulating supply during volatile periods.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @LayerZero_Core (ZRO) did a one-off $150M buyback to repurchase 5% of total ZRO supply from early investors.
This massive buyback removed a meaningful chunk of supply at once which in turn stabilized price, reducing potential selling pressure from early investors and signalling long-term alignment.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @Raydium (RAY) is a Solana DEX and it leads as the project with the largest token buyback-and-burn spending of $100.35 million.
Unlike the top three token buybacks which were only implemented this year, the programmatic RAY token buybacks have been in place since 2022.
By funneling DEX fee revenue into buybacks and burns, Raydium helped support scarcity, improved staking/yield mechanics, and aligned token supply with actual usage.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @SkyEcosystem (SKY) since its launch in February, Sky Protocol's programmatic token buybacks have accumulated 5.4% of total supply using $78.82 million in surplus revenue YTD,
This makes it the third highest share of supply that has been repurchased.
SKY token buybacks have seen spending fluctuate between $2.96 million and $18.31 million a month, averaging $9.68 million
---------------------------------------------
While these projects above have enjoyed the buyback system and it has really help them thrived, there are some other projects who are also using this system but it hasn't really moved the needle for them
➢ @JupiterExchange (JUP)aAllocated 50% of protocol fees to buybacks starting Feb this year. Since then, they have spent $57.85M on tokens and have repurchased 117M $JUP which amounts to 1.68% of the circulating supply.
Despite buybacks, JUP remained under pressure.
Weak demand and tough conditions meant the supply sinks didn’t help much even big allocations couldn’t lift the price back up.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @jito_sol (JTO) completed an initial $1M buyback in late Q3 which was executed and the DAO has moved to allocate protocol revenue toward continued repurchases, Jito has since then 520k of the JTO supply which equals to 0.05% of the supply
Even though they did this, $JTO remained under pressure in several windows. Market commentary concluded that the buyback size was too small relative to float/liquidity to create a durable price floor.
It was therefore perceived as necessary signaling but insufficient to reverse the downtrend by itself.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @aave (AAVE) Aave’s DAO approved a $50M annual buyback program.
This is a large, revenue-backed commitment that improved long-term framing for AAVE holders.
However, price action remained correlated to macro factors like ETH correlation, lending market cycles, and the program, while constructive for capital allocation, it did not shield AAVE from broader market drawdowns.
---------------------------------------------
➢ @ether_fi (ETHFI) has a new proposal recently authorizing up to $50M from treasury to buy back ETHFI if price goes below $3
As a newly approved plan, no significant on-chain evidence yet of execution so the market hasn’t rewarded it.
Demonstrates that intent alone isn't equal to impact, executions matter a lot.
---------------------------------------------
𝐖𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐰𝐚𝐭𝐜𝐡 𝐠𝐨𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝
➢ Small buybacks rarely move the supply curve. Protocols that spent tens or hundreds of millions (like Hyperliquid, Pumpfun, LayerZero) showed real results.
➢ Consistency matters more than headlines . A one-off $150M buyback like ZRO can shift supply but only recurring, revenue-backed buybacks build long-term credibility.
➢ Even aggressive buybacks can have limited effect if token supply is huge, liquidity deep, or demand weak.
➢ Programs with public dashboards or verified on-chain buys like Hyperliquid and the EtherFi proposal build trust but the market values action, not just promises.
➢ When combined with real product usage, token utility, and growth, buybacks amplify value. Alone, they risk being just PR theatre.
---------------------------------------------
𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧:
𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩: 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘭𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭.
𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘰𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦-𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘸 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴; 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘴𝘮𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘺𝘮𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘥𝘯’𝘵 𝘮𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘦𝘵.
𝘎𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘺𝘣𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥, 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘶𝘴𝘢𝘨𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘭 𝘦𝘹𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘦𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘪𝘴𝘦.
Your thoughs?
English
