Are token buybacks becoming the new altcoin tokenomics?

[kaankaya]

Looks like crypto projects found a new favorite way to support their tokens: just buy them back.

So far in 2026, projects have spent around $638M on token buybacks, which is already a record. And the funny part is that almost 90% of this came from only two projects - Hyperliquid and Pump.fun. Hyperliquid is responsible for roughly $370M,and Pump.fun spent close to $200M.

I kinda understand why people like this model.

If a protocol is actually making money from fees, using part of that revenue to buy its own token sounds much better than another token where holders just wait and hope the price goes up. Hyperliquid takes this pretty far - around 99% of eligible fee are used for HYPE buybacks through its Assistance Fund.

And now Ethena wants to go in a similar direction. The Foundation proposed a fee switch where, after USDe reaches a certain supply milestone, 95% of net revenue paid to the Foundation could go toward ENA buybacks, with only 5% left for growth.

That makes me wonder if we are slowly getting a different type of altcoin market.

For years we heard the same stuff: utility, ecosystem, governance, future adoption. A lot of it sounded good on paper, but there was often very little connection between the success of the actual business and the token itself.

Buybacks at least try to connect those two things.Protocol earns more → more money can go into buying the token.

Simple idea.

But I’m not fully sold on it either. A buyback can reduce selling pressure and create constant demand, sure, but it doesn’t magically make a bad token good. If revenue falls, users leave, or token emissions are still huge, buying some tokens from the market may not change much. The Financial Times also pointed out that buyback programs haven't automatically translated into better token performance across the market.

So maybe the real thing to watch is where does the money for those buybacks actually come from? If it comes from real fees and a business that people are genuinely using, then yeah, I think that gets interesting.

What do you guys think? Would you rather hold an altcoin with aggressive buybacks, direct fee sharing, or would you prefer the project to put that money back into growth?

[hugeblack]

Token buyback programs are a more subtle form of token burning, both aimed at either increasing demand or decreasing supply to achieve the same goal: driving up the price. there is no difference between them, and projects that operate this way prioritize their own profits over those who buy the tokens.

[EarnOnVictor]

What do you guys think? Would you rather hold an altcoin with aggressive buybacks, direct fee sharing, or would you prefer the project to put that money back into growth?

This isn’t really new, as it's being adapted from the traditional financial system, where companies buy back their own shares for various reasons. Personally, I’d choose direct fee sharing over buybacks or growth spending, assuming the protocol is already successful, popular, and generating real revenue.

Getting paid out in stablecoins or ETH means I’m locking in actual profits without having to sell my core token position. That’s much more attractive to me than relying on buybacks to indirectly support the token price.

[$crypto$]

So maybe the real thing to watch is where does the money for those buybacks actually come from? If it comes from real fees and a business that people are genuinely using, then yeah, I think that gets interesting.

Revenue, usually from trading fees, launchpad or others. Hyperliquid spends about 99% of revenue on token buyback, Pump.fun about 50% for buyback.

So the token repurchase is not entirely strategic, only some with high volume are able to grow well, while the rest still remain no change at all.

Several articles describing the buyback.

https://incrypted.com/en/crypto-companies-spent-a-record-640-million-buying-back-their-own-tokens/
https://unitypad.org/learn/token-buybacks-explained/

[kaankaya]

So maybe the real thing to watch is where does the money for those buybacks actually come from? If it comes from real fees and a business that people are genuinely using, then yeah, I think that gets interesting.

Revenue, usually from trading fees, launchpad or others. Hyperliquid spends about 99% of revenue on token buyback, Pump.fun about 50% for buyback.

So the token repurchase is not entirely strategic, only some with high volume are able to grow well, while the rest still remain no change at all.

Several articles describing the buyback.

https://incrypted.com/en/crypto-companies-spent-a-record-640-million-buying-back-their-own-tokens/
https://unitypad.org/learn/token-buybacks-explained/

Yeah, that’s exactly the part I’m a bit skeptical about too. The biggest thing here is how much real revenue the project actually generates and how much of that can consistently go back into the token.

Hyperliquid is probably the best example of where the model actually has some weight because the fees are there.

Thanks for the links btw
Saving these, will have a proper read this evening

[TastyChillySauce00]

What do you guys think? Would you rather hold an altcoin with aggressive buybacks, direct fee sharing, or would you prefer the project to put that money back into growth?

Buyback should be the way to go, token holders have lesser right compared to stock holder, even if token holder is allowed to vote for governance, they don't really vote for the foundation behind the governance therefore making it significantly less beneficial to hold token than a stock, buyback is the last thing these protocol could do to share the benefit with their holders. Otherwise, what would really be the point of deploying token in the first place if the token isn't really supported by the project through buyback from revenue, if the project is sutainable and want to provide value to your holders, it should be number one priority

[Jostle]

Token buybacks are good if and only if the tokens are subsequently burnt out of circulation. A diminishing supply would gradually and slowly raise prices if (BIG IF) the underlying fundamentals of the crypto projects are strong. Burning is the extra fuel to boost prices. Otherwise, if the underlying fundamentals are bad, even token buyback-and-burnt can't save it from a spiral of death.

The problem with token buybacks, I think, is if the buybacks are then use to return to circulation, so it's just "tokenism" (pun intended).