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

cryptonews.ru2026-08-13 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-08-13 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

Recently, analysis firm SemiAnalysis accused tech giants Google and Meta of "benchmark gaming" with their AI models Gemini 3.8 Flash and Muse Spark 1.3. The accusation stems from a dramatic performance drop between two versions of the Terminal-Bench evaluation for AI agents. On the older, public Terminal-Bench 2.1, Gemini 3.8 Flash scored 89.4, ranking second and beating GPT-6 Astra, while Muse Spark 1.3 scored 88.8. However, on the newly released, more secure Terminal-Bench 4.0, their scores plummeted to 19.1 and approximately 33.3 respectively, far behind competitors. SemiAnalysis argues this indicates "benchmark contamination," where companies train models not on the public test questions themselves, but on expensive, privately purchased training data specifically designed to mimic the benchmark's style. This has evolved into a lucrative industry, with specialized firms selling tailored training tasks for thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The article specifically points to Datacurve, a company that both sells expert coding data and runs its own benchmark (DeepSWE), where the accused models also performed well. Meta's Chief AI Officer, Alexandr Wang, dismissed the claims as a "silly argument," pointing out similar performance drops for other models like GPT-5.6 Sol. He stated Meta never claimed Muse Spark 1.3 was as powerful as top-tier models, only that it offered better value. The report concludes that this is the inevitable fate of all high-quality public benchmarks—they become "gamed" over time. The proposed solution of private, high-quality benchmarks comes with a significant downside: it would erode public transparency, turning open rankings into marketing tools and leaving developers without a common, fair measure to compare AI models.

marsbit2 saat önce

Google and Meta Called Out for Benchmark Gaming

marsbit2 saat önce

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

Coinbase co-founder Fred Ehrsam is venturing into the oil fields of Venezuela, a surprising shift for a prominent figure in the digital asset space. Through his company Primavera Infinita, he recently secured a production contract for the Budare-Elotes block with Venezuela's state oil firm PDVSA. This move into a politically volatile, sanction-scarred country highlights a bet on high returns from its reopening under new leadership and shifting U.S. foreign policy. Ehrsam’s investment reflects a venture capital-style appetite for risk, targeting assets deeply discounted by political uncertainty. He is not alone; smaller, politically connected U.S. firms like Aspect Holdings and Hunt Oil are also entering, while established giants like ExxonMobil remain cautious due to past expropriations. To manage the complex, capital-intensive nature of oil, Ehrsam is assembling a professional team. This trend extends beyond Ehrsam. Other crypto wealth, like BitMEX's Arthur Hayes and Tether, is diversifying into traditional hard assets—energy, metals, and agriculture—seeking physical scarcity as a long-term anchor. Tether, for instance, took a controlling stake in agricultural giant Adecoagro. These moves signify crypto capital's evolving interest: not just tokenizing real-world assets (RWA), but directly acquiring and operating them. Ultimately, Ehrsam's gamble is less on oil geology and more on the duration of Venezuela's current political window. It underscores a broader narrative where digital-era wealth seeks stability and scale in the physical world's most traditional, immovable resources.

marsbit2 saat önce

Crypto's Nouveau Riche Strikes Gold in the Real World: Coinbase Co-founder's Venezuelan Oil Field Adventure

marsbit2 saat önce

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

Title: Refuting the "Ethereum Abandoning ETH" Argument: What Does Paying Gas Without ETH Really Mean? The debate sparked by Vitalik Buterin's discussion of EIP-8141 (Frame Transactions), which suggests users could pay transaction fees without holding ETH, has led to extreme claims that ETH will lose its value. However, this perspective misunderstands the proposal. Currently, an Ethereum user initiating a transaction must also pay the network's Gas fee in ETH. EIP-8141 aims to decouple these actions. It allows a transaction to be split into separate "frames." A user could sign a transaction to, for example, send USDC, while a separate Paymaster account pays the required ETH Gas fee on their behalf. The user would then settle the cost with the Paymaster using USDC or another token. From the user's perspective, they pay in a stablecoin without interacting with ETH. Crucially, from the Ethereum protocol's perspective, the Gas is still paid in ETH; only the settlement layer between the user and Paymaster changes. This concept isn't entirely new; ERC-4337's Account Abstraction already allows similar Gas sponsorship. EIP-8141 seeks to integrate this capability more natively. The core goal is to drastically improve user experience by abstracting away the complexity of Gas, similar to how one pays with a credit card abroad without handling the local currency. It also enables atomic operations, like bundling token approval with a swap, which would revert together if the swap fails. Regarding ETH's value, the argument that "no ETH is needed" is incorrect. While users may not hold ETH, Paymasters and services must still acquire and spend ETH to pay network fees on the backend. The demand for ETH shifts from being distributed across millions of user wallets to being concentrated in the balances of these service providers. The key variable is whether this improved usability attracts significant new users and increases overall network activity. If it does, total ETH burned in fees could rise substantially. If it doesn't, the change merely reshuffles who holds the ETH needed for Gas. In summary, EIP-8141 aims to lower the entry barrier by hiding Gas complexity, betting that this will drive broader adoption and increase the fundamental utility—and thus demand—for the Ethereum network and ETH itself.

marsbit2 saat önce

Refuting the Ethereum 'Abandoning' ETH Narrative: What Does It Really Mean to Pay Gas Without ETH?

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片