Token Buyback Volumes Continue to Rise, But Price Lows Keep Falling

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2026-08-13Last updated on 2026-08-13

Abstract

The volume of token buybacks continues to grow, but the minimum price level is constantly declining, according to an internal memo by Bitwise CIO Matt Hogan. He argues that most crypto tokens, except Bitcoin, are undervalued as investors are unaware of the revenue now being returned to holders. He highlights the example of Hyperliquid, which has bought back and burned $1.3 billion worth of its $HYPE token. Hogan posits that tokens are beginning to trade based on revenue, similar to stocks and bonds, marking the end of an era where scaling networks provided little token utility. He links token valuation to strengthening protocol revenue, noting that Hyperliquid has earned over $800 million in the past year and spends nearly all fees on $HYPE buybacks. Following this model, protocols like Uniswap and Aave have implemented fee mechanisms to buy back and burn their own tokens. The trend has also affected base chains like Solana and Aptos, which have proposed or enacted higher fee burns. However, the memo acknowledges that reducing token supply has not reliably boosted prices. A Cryptopolitan report found many tokens with regular buybacks still underperformed the market. Even Hyperliquid's upward trend broke, and Pump.fun conducted significant buybacks near token lows. Hogan cautions that token buybacks differ from stock buybacks due to the lack of contractual claims on profits or assets, as governance rules can always be rewritten.

In a memo dated August 12, Matt Hougan, Chief Investment Officer of asset management firm Bitwise, stated that most crypto tokens, except for Bitcoin, are undervalued.

Investors are not aware of the revenue that protocols are now returning to holders. The most vivid example is Hyperliquid's buyback and burn of $HYPE tokens worth $1.3 billion, he said. If this trend continues, the market "could see a doubling or even an increase in value," Hougan added.

Hougan Says Tokens Are Now Trading on Revenue

For years, a key criticism of cryptocurrencies was that networks could scale significantly, but the tokens were of little utility.

In a memo titled "The Crypto Revenue Revolution," Hougan stated, "That era is over." He believes tokens are beginning to trade on the same metric as stocks and bonds, namely revenue.

Hougan directly linked his valuation thesis to the belief that the connection between protocol revenue and token price is strengthening. Bitwise stated that the memo represents a snapshot assessment and is not an investment recommendation.

Over the past year, Hyperliquid has earned over $800 million. According to the Bitwise memo, the DEX spends about 99% of its fee revenue buying $HYPE on the open market and subsequently burning it.

Since the token's launch in November 2024, these purchases have permanently removed $1.3 billion worth of $HYPE tokens from circulation.

Hougan noted that $HYPE has risen approximately 800% since launch, while Bitcoin has lost about a third of its value. He attributes part of $HYPE's rise to buyers anticipating that growing volume would directly drive the burn.

According to data.

Uniswap and Aave Copy the Hyperliquid Model

In December 2025, Uniswap held a vote on "$UNI," which for the first time introduced protocol fees, instantly burning 100 million $UNI, or about $590 million. The protocol now generates about $100 million annually and spends all of it on token buybacks.

Aave plans to spend around $30 million annually on AAVE, which is almost one-fifth of its revenue. It implemented an automated program called Aavenomics 3.0 for this purpose.

Pump.fun, which had an annual revenue of $328 million, had spent $370 million by April 2026 on perpetual vault PUMP buybacks. Lighter, a newer platform for perpetual vault buybacks, bought back about 6% of its LIT vault, generating $67 million in revenue.

The "revenue enhancement fever" has touched base chains, said Hougan. The Solana community proposed SGP-0003 to increase fee spending volume by up to 14 times.

This year, Aptos increased its gas fee tenfold. Activity on Aptos nearly tripled, and the annual number of tokens burned rose from ~90,000 to approximately 1.9 million.

A January Cryptopolitan report found that reducing supply did not lead to reliable price increases, and that many tokens with regular buybacks still underperformed the market and failed to hold their level.

Even Hyperliquid broke its initial uptrend. Pump.fun at one point bought back over 18% of its supply while the token was near its lows.

Hougan stated that token buybacks differ from stock buybacks because there is no contractual claim to profits or assets. Governance can always rewrite or change the economic principles.

end-content

Related Questions

QAccording to Matt Hougan's memo, what new criterion are tokens beginning to be evaluated by, similar to stocks and bonds?

AAccording to Matt Hougan, tokens are beginning to be traded based on the same criterion as stocks and bonds, which is revenue.

QWhich protocol does the article cite as the clearest example of a new revenue model, having used over $1.3 billion to buy and burn its tokens?

AThe article cites Hyperliquid as the clearest example, stating it used over $1.3 billion to buy and burn its $HYPE tokens from the open market.

QWhat is a key difference mentioned by Hougan between token buybacks and stock buybacks?

AA key difference is that token buybacks lack a contractual right to profits or assets, and governance can always rewrite or change the economic principles, unlike traditional stock buybacks.

QWhich two major DeFi protocols are mentioned as adopting similar buyback and burn models after Hyperliquid?

AThe two major DeFi protocols mentioned are Uniswap ($UNI) and Aave ($AAVE).

QDespite the increase in buyback volume, what trend in token prices is highlighted in the article's title and a Cryptopolitan report?

AThe trend highlighted is that while buyback volume continues to grow, the minimum price level of tokens keeps falling or fails to show reliable growth, with many tokens underperforming the market.

Related Reads

Trezor Customer Data Leak: Coins Are Safe, But Phishing Is Inevitable

Trezor, a hardware cryptocurrency wallet manufacturer, reported a data breach at its logistics partner, ShipMonk, affecting around 13,689 customers. The incident, confirmed on August 13, 2026, involved unauthorized access to ShipMonk's systems, which stored order information from May 10 to August 8, 2026. Trezor's own systems and user crypto assets were not compromised. The leaked data varies: for 11,742 customers, full names, email addresses, phone numbers, and delivery addresses were exposed. For 1,947 others, only name, city, and email were leaked. The breach was limited to customers in the US, UK, Sweden, Colombia, Brazil, Italy, and Portugal. Trezor warns affected users of an increased risk of phishing attacks, where malicious actors may use the stolen contact details to impersonate Trezor, banks, or exchanges to steal wallet recovery phrases. All impacted customers have been notified via email. In response, Trezor announced a planned "Anonymous Delivery" feature for the EU (September 2026) and the US (end of 2026), aiming to anonymize logistics data. ShipMonk has not yet issued a public statement on its official website. The analysis highlights this as a recurring industry pattern where third-party logistics vendors become weak links in the supply chain, storing data longer than necessary. Similar incidents, like the 2020 Ledger breach, led to prolonged phishing campaigns. A key question remains whether hardware wallets can ever fully decouple from external logistics risks.

cryptonews.ru8m ago

Trezor Customer Data Leak: Coins Are Safe, But Phishing Is Inevitable

cryptonews.ru8m ago

NullReceiver abandons the recording address that made EtherHiding easy to detect

**Sonatype Research Labs has uncovered six malicious npm packages that retrieve command-and-control server addresses from an attacker's Ethereum wallet.** Three of the packages are legitimate, popular libraries that were compromised: `@kolbo/mcp`, `agentgui`, and `godot-kit`. The other three are purely malicious packages: `envpack-conf`, `postcss-initial-provider`, and `tailwindcss-motion-advanced`. All six deploy the same payload. The malware loader queries the Ethereum blockchain for the latest outgoing transaction from a specific wallet. It extracts bytes from the recipient field of that transaction, converts them into two IPv4 addresses, and uses these as primary and backup command-and-control servers. After connecting, it fetches, decodes, and executes a second-stage payload using `eval()` or by spawning a child process. This method, dubbed **"NullReceiver,"** is an evolution of the earlier "EtherHiding" technique. While EtherHiding hid data in transaction fields and sent funds to a fixed "burner" address (creating a monitoring point), NullReceiver sends no funds and generates unique, dynamic receiver addresses, making detection harder. OpenSourceMalware has linked this activity to the North Korean Lazarus group's "Contagious Interview" campaign. Sonatype advises developers to remove the affected package versions immediately and check their systems for signs of secondary payload execution.

cryptonews.ru1h ago

NullReceiver abandons the recording address that made EtherHiding easy to detect

cryptonews.ru1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片