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

cryptonews.ruОпубліковано о 2026-08-13Востаннє оновлено о 2026-08-13

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

‘White hats’ take 4000 BTC from Liquid, ETFs see best week of 2026: Hodler’s Digest

A purported "white hat" hacking group has withdrawn nearly 4,000 BTC (worth $319 million) from the Blockstream-run Liquid Network sidechain, leaving a message to "contact us on chain." The network has been paused as its team investigates the security breach and negotiates for the funds' return. Analysis suggests the transaction pattern is more consistent with a white hat extraction than a theft. In other news, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs saw their strongest three-week inflow stretch of 2026, attracting a net $3.8 billion. Meanwhile, AMC's CEO Adam Aron has threatened legal action against Robinhood's Ethereum L2 for tokenizing AMC stock without permission, sparking a public feud. A consortium of 21 major financial institutions, including Bank of America and Goldman Sachs, plans to launch a USD-denominated stablecoin in the first half of 2027. Prediction market platform Kalshi has issued a lifetime ban to former lawmaker George Santos for alleged insider trading, while facing a legal challenge from New Jersey over state jurisdiction. Bitcoin traded around $80,234 at week's end. Arthur Hayes predicted Bitcoin could reach $1 million by 2030 but stated his best risk-adjusted bet is currently Ethereum. The IMF reported El Salvador used private donations, not public funds, for recent Bitcoin accumulation, a claim President Bukele disputes. A fake Claude desktop app is spreading crypto-stealing malware, and Hyperscale Data has ended Bitcoin mining in Michigan to convert the site for AI operations.

cointelegraph19 хв тому

‘White hats’ take 4000 BTC from Liquid, ETFs see best week of 2026: Hodler’s Digest

cointelegraph19 хв тому

Robinhood Chain Fees Spark Debate Over Business Models: To Be a Tenant or a Landlord?

A public debate erupted over the weekend of September 5th regarding the fee model of Robinhood Chain, highlighting a fundamental conflict between two blockchain philosophies: Solana's "lowest Gas" approach versus Arbitrum's focus on "finding a sustainable business model." Robinhood Chain, an L2 built on Arbitrum Orbit that launched in July 2026, saw its average Gas fee rise to around $0.40 as transaction volume grew—over 100 times more expensive than Solana and even double Ethereum's mainnet cost. Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko ("Toly") criticized this model, arguing that the 10% of net protocol revenue Robinhood shares with the Arbitrum ecosystem (with 90% retained) could cover quadruple the fees on Solana. He contended that applications, not the base layer, should charge users, with the base layer focusing on ultra-low costs. In response, Offchain Labs co-founder Steven Goldfeder defended the Arbitrum model. He stated that by operating its own sequencer, Robinhood captures 90% of the Gas revenue—acting as a "landlord"—whereas on Solana, all fees go to validators, leaving Robinhood as a "tenant" that would have to subsidize user costs out of pocket. This exchange framed the core debate: should chains be free with applications monetizing, or should chains themselves capture value? The discussion broadened with contributions from Nina Rong (BNB Chain Growth Lead and former Arbitrum employee), who argued that endlessly lowering Gas is no longer the top priority. The industry must establish sustainable business models—whether through fees, revenue sharing, or other agreements—to ensure long-term viability beyond reliance on foundation grants. The debate underscores two diverging paths: 1. **Solana's "Ultra-Low Cost + Ecosystem Flywheel":** Prioritizes high throughput and minimal fees to attract users and applications. Value capture for apps happens off-chain (e.g., front-end fees, subscriptions). 2. **Arbitrum's "Customizable App-Chain + Revenue Share":** Allows projects to launch their own chains, control sequencers, and retain most fee revenue while sharing a portion with the parent ecosystem, creating a clearer business闭环 for large entities like Robinhood. An underlying issue is Ethereum's minimal value capture. While Robinhood Chain settles on Ethereum, over 99.99% of the fees are retained by Robinhood and Arbitrum, with only a tiny fraction going to Ethereum for data availability and security—posing a long-term challenge for the mainnet's security budget. The conclusion is that the industry is moving beyond a simple "cheapest Gas" competition. The real challenge is finding a sustainable balance between user experience, infrastructure profitability, and security incentives. The winners will be those who successfully navigate this complex trilemma.

marsbit23 хв тому

Robinhood Chain Fees Spark Debate Over Business Models: To Be a Tenant or a Landlord?

marsbit23 хв тому

Solana and Arbitrum Co-founders Clash Over Robinhood Chain Fee Model

The co-founders of Solana (Anatoly Yakovenko) and Arbitrum/Offchain Labs (Steven Goldfeder) have engaged in a public debate over the fee economics of Robinhood Chain. The discussion intensified as average transaction fees on Robinhood Chain reached $0.40, over 100x higher than on Solana and more than double Ethereum's fees. Yakovenko argued that the 10% of net revenue Robinhood Chain pays to Arbitrum (with 8% to Arbitrum DAO and 2% to Developer Guild) would be enough to cover Solana's transaction fees four times over, suggesting Robinhood could make user transactions free. He proposed Robinhood could charge fees at the application frontend while using a cheaper backend infrastructure. Goldfeder countered, stating Yakovenko's view focuses on costs but ignores revenue. He emphasized that by building on Arbitrum, Robinhood keeps 90% of the gas fees. If it were merely a user of Solana's infrastructure, it would earn 0% from gas and would have to subsidize any free transactions from its own funds. Goldfeder framed the choice as Robinhood opting to be a "landlord" (earning from the chain's activity) rather than a "tenant." The debate comes amid surging activity on Robinhood Chain, which recently saw daily DEX trading volume exceed $1.72 billion and generated $24.5 million in fees in a single day. Over the past 30 days, the chain's fees totaled $188.16 million.

cryptonews.ru4 год тому

Solana and Arbitrum Co-founders Clash Over Robinhood Chain Fee Model

cryptonews.ru4 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片