Hyperliquid’s $780M buyback soars 65% while Jupiter, Bonk, and LayerZero lose $98M

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-11-04Last updated on 2025-11-04

Key Takeaways

How did Hyperliquid’s buyback succeed while others failed?

Hyperliquid spent $780M buying back 34.41M tokens and gained 65% as it is a revenue-generating perpetuals DEX with real token utility. Others failed to yield profit.

 Which buyback programs performed worst?

Bonk led losses at -57%, despite spending $26.65 million, followed by Ether.fi (-31.4%), LayerZero (-31.5%), Kaito (-28%), and Jupiter (-27.5%). 


Seven crypto projects spent $1.1 billion on token buybacks. Only one turned a profit, Hyperliquid. The numbers show buybacks don’t create value—they amplify what already exists.

Hyperliquid wins, six others lose

Data from Tokenomist shows that Hyperliquid dominates the buyback leaderboard. 

Hyperliquid leading the buyback race

Source: Tokenomist

The perpetuals DEX spent $780 million buying back 34.41 million HYPE tokens. The current value is $1.28 billion, while the profit is $508.55 million, representing a margin of over 65.16%.

However, everyone else failed. Bonk lost 57% despite spending $26.65 million.

LayerZero dropped 31.5% after a $100 million buyback. Ether.fi fell 31.4% with $7.73 million spent. Jupiter declined 27.5% despite $62.12 million in buybacks. 

Furthermore, Pump.fun and Kaito also trail negative, and the combined losses are $98 million across these six projects, which spent $321 million on buybacks.

Why Hyperliquid might have won

Hyperliquid generates real revenue from perpetual futures trading, and users require HYPE tokens to receive fee discounts and platform benefits. Buybacks amplified existing organic demand.

HYPE currently trades at $38.43, down 4.33% on the day but maintaining strength after climbing from $35 lows in late October.

The accumulation/distribution indicator shows sustained buying pressure despite short-term volatility.

The massive $780 million buyback created a genuine supply shock on a relatively new token with limited circulation. 

Additionally, Hyperliquid made strategic purchases during the platform’s growth phase, not after reaching peak prices.

Why other projects might have made a loss

Bonk, for one, has no revenue model and limited utility, and the buyback tried to create artificial demand. However, the market saw through it. 

Bonk trades at $0.00001166, down from its October highs of around $0.000027, representing a brutal 56% collapse.

Accumulation indicators show massive distribution with -30.47 trillion tokens leaving holder accounts.

Jupiter faces similar issues. Despite being Solana’s leading DEX, its $62 million buyback couldn’t overcome weak token utility.

LayerZero spent $100 million but offers unclear token value beyond speculation.

The pattern repeats: projects with weak fundamentals often use buybacks as a band-aid. Markets rejected the artificial support.

Share

Related Reads

The Veil of Mythos Becomes Anthropic's Lever to Move Trillions

The article discusses Anthropic's reported upcoming $30 billion funding round, which would value the company at over $900 billion. It analyzes how the company has leveraged strategic narratives around its unreleased "Mythos" model, rather than just its publicly available products, to drive this massive valuation. Key points include Google's surprising $40 billion investment in a competitor, suggesting it is buying strategic positioning. Anthropic's "Glasswing" cybersecurity project and the unreleased Mythos model are portrayed not through direct proof, but through carefully crafted narratives of being "too powerful for public release," creating an aura of exclusive, high-level capability. This is bolstered by reports of the White House and NSA seeking access to Claude/Mythos despite previous security concerns, implying indispensable technology. Furthermore, Anthropic's reported rapid revenue growth—from a $1 billion annual run-rate in late 2024 to over $30 billion by April 2026, largely driven by enterprise API and Claude Code—provides a financial story for investors. The article concludes that Anthropic's core business model is effectively converting unverifiable technical potential, government interest, and future revenue projections into a compelling narrative that secures immense capital, using the actions of wealthy investors and powerful institutions as the ultimate validation of its worth.

marsbit1h ago

The Veil of Mythos Becomes Anthropic's Lever to Move Trillions

marsbit1h ago

Google CEO Admits Lagging Behind in Coding

Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged in a recent interview that Google's Gemini AI models are currently "lagging behind" in coding capabilities, particularly for complex, long-horizon tasks requiring advanced developer expertise. He noted the field is advancing at an "unprecedented" pace, where 30-60 days now brings changes equivalent to five years in the past. Pichai expressed that achieving Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) now seems closer than previously imagined due to rapid progress. While highlighting strengths in text, multimodal, and reasoning tasks, Pichai admitted competitors like Anthropic and OpenAI have focused more intently on coding. He emphasized Google's commitment to catching up, citing internal tools like Antigravity 2.0 and the newly released Gemini 3.5 Flash, which aims to address previous shortcomings. Regarding Google Search's AI-driven overhaul, Pichai stated changes will be gradual to align with user needs, not disrupt the core search experience or its advertising model. He addressed public AI anxiety as understandable, given the technology's potential to reshape jobs and society, but remained optimistic about AI augmenting human capabilities and creating new opportunities. Pichai stressed the need for broad societal dialogue and responsible development as AI approaches more advanced, potentially recursive self-improvement stages. He affirmed Google's long-term commitment to leading in AI while navigating its profound implications responsibly.

marsbit3h ago

Google CEO Admits Lagging Behind in Coding

marsbit3h ago

The Paradox of Automation: The Stronger the AI, the Busier Humans Become

The Paradox of Automation: The more powerful AI becomes, the more work humans have to do. This article, based on observations from AI-heavy company Every, argues that while AI agents automate tasks like coding, writing, and customer service, they don't eliminate human jobs. Instead, they transform work and create *more* demand for human expertise. AI commoditizes "yesterday's human capabilities" by cheaply generating code, text, and images from past data. This leads to an abundance of similar, generic outputs. Consequently, what becomes scarce and valuable is human judgment in the present moment: knowing *what* is worth doing, *why*, and *how* to do it well. The article identifies two collaboration models: "Agent employees" for delegated tasks and "human-AI collaboration" within tools like Claude Code for complex work. In both cases, humans are essential to set direction, judge quality, and maintain systems. As AI makes execution cheap, human roles shift from executors to designers, reviewers, and meaning-makers. The author addresses "benchmark anxiety" by explaining that AI excels within specific, human-defined problem "frames." As AI masters one frame (e.g., code rewriting), new, more complex frames emerge (e.g., deciding *when* to rewrite). This creates an ongoing cycle where AI chases the frames, but humans remain the "framers." Even with advanced AGI, this dynamic may persist as long as AI lacks true human-like agency and self-directed purpose. The core paradox holds: automation amplifies the need for the very human judgment it seems to replace.

marsbit4h ago

The Paradox of Automation: The Stronger the AI, the Busier Humans Become

marsbit4h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of S (S) are presented below.

活动图片