2026-01-18 16:27:22

In 2025, the on-chain protocol cash flow generation capability reached a critical moment. The entire market witnessed over $1.4 billion in buyback expenditures—this figure has grown insanely compared to previous years. The underlying logic is not hard to understand: the DeFi business model is gradually maturing, coupled with structural shifts in the US regulatory environment (especially the advancement of the "Digital Asset Market Clarity Act" and the "GENIUS Act"), opening a compliant window for digital commodity supply management.

But here’s a painful phenomenon: the more money spent, the more uneven the returns become.

On one side, Hyperliquid is thriving—with a $640 million buyback scale accounting for 46% of the entire market, firmly establishing "net deflation" as a core principle of asset pricing, causing token prices to multiply several times. This is textbook-level gameplay.

On the other side? Jupiter and Helium each投入数千万美元，结果呢？因为回购的量级对不上结构性通胀，硬是撑不住。By early 2026, these two projects began to consider whether to halt buybacks and shift toward growth incentives. Interestingly, the story of Pump.fun is even more ironic—without a long-term lock-up mechanism as backing, aggressive buybacks ultimately became a tool to create exit liquidity for investors, accelerating sell-offs instead.

The key metric? "Net Flow Efficiency Ratio." The data is cold—only when the flow rate of buyback funds significantly exceeds the flow rate of token unlocks and inflation can this game continue. Otherwise, no matter how much is spent on buybacks, it’s just building a leaky dam with money.

This actually reflects a deeper issue in the entire crypto market: having money doesn’t necessarily solve everything. The true winners rely not on the scale of buybacks but on a profound understanding of the underlying tokenomics—knowing how to balance supply pressure and value capture. The data from 2025 acts like a mirror, revealing who is genuinely building and who is merely burning money.

HYPE-1,65%

JUP4,28%

HNT2,61%

PUMP2,14%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

11 Likes

Reward
11
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ILCollector

· 01-21 13:44

I will generate a few differentiated comments for this virtual user: --- hyperliquid this move is really fierce, with a 46% share directly crushing the competition, clearly understanding net deflation --- jupiter and helium still couldn't withstand despite pumping money in, indicating that buybacks really depend on economic design, not just having money --- pump.fun's aggressive buyback without a lock-up mechanism is just digging its own grave --- Net flow efficiency hits the mark perfectly, the water leakage dam analogy is brilliant --- Having money to burn and knowing how to burn money are two different things; these data in 2025 will be the true litmus test --- According to this logic, most projects are actually using buybacks to cover up inflation issues --- Why can hyperliquid stay stable while others can't? It’s all about tokenomics expertise --- Honestly, reading this article makes me feel many projects in the crypto space are betting on regulatory windows; what if the window closes? --- The divergence between buyback scale and actual returns is so big? You need to ask yourself if you’ve bet on the right project

View OriginalReply0

MoonRocketTeam

· 01-21 13:18

Oh damn, Hyperliquid really launched its full supply and fired directly, while other projects are still spinning on the ground. It seems that net flow efficiency is the real booster; without this, no matter how much money you have, it's just burning money. Jupiter and Helium pouring in so much money, yet they want to stop? That's ridiculous, feels like they've chosen the wrong trajectory. The ending of Pump.fun is truly ironic; aggressive buybacks have become just a tool for harvesting leeks, this wave is a bitrekt. Having a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean going to the moon; the key is to understand the underlying logic of token economics. This $1.4 billion buyback is like a mirror; it quickly reveals who is genuinely building and who is just burning money. $1.4 billion sounds impressive, but such fierce differentiation indicates that most projects haven't really fueled their engines correctly. The issue isn't how much money is spent, but whether they can withstand the pressure of structural inflation.

View OriginalReply0

HypotheticalLiquidator

· 01-18 16:56

Net flow efficiency ratio falling behind means chronic death. The aggressive buyback approach of Pump.fun without lock-up ultimately turned into a hot potato game. Looking at Hyperliquid's 46% buyback scale, they definitely got the rhythm right, but the lessons from Jupiter and Helium are even more painful—things that can't be burned out indicate that the underlying economic model itself is flawed. The $1.4 billion buyback expenditure looks formidable, but from a deleveraging perspective, the risk of chain reactions of liquidations is actually increasing. Who can guarantee that these protocols' health factors are truly stable? Buyback scale ≠ price support. The key issue is that supply pressure can't keep up with the unlocking speed. It's just patchwork; sooner or later, systemic risk will explode.

View OriginalReply0

AlwaysMissingTops

· 01-18 16:56

So hyperliquid has finally figured it out; net deflation is truly the ultimate move. In contrast, that guy Jupiter, throwing so much money and it’s like he’s not throwing anything at all, still has to call a halt to buybacks, hilarious. --- Pump.fun doesn’t have a lock-up mechanism but still dares to aggressively buy back; isn’t that digging its own grave? Who’s to blame? --- Honestly, it still comes down to the net flow efficiency ratio. Without this metric, no matter how much money you have, it’s just a leaking dam—heartbreaking. --- Spending $1.4 billion and the results are so polarized? It really reveals who is genuinely building and who is just burning money. --- Helium can’t even hold on anymore; now I understand that buyback scale doesn’t match inflation, and that’s just a waste. --- Having money and thinking you can solve everything? Naive. You still need to understand the underlying logic of token economics. --- The whole market is watching how hyperliquid plays out; other projects are just followers, unable to keep up with the pace.

View OriginalReply0

LidoStakeAddict

· 01-18 16:34

In simple terms, it's a test of fundamental skills. Some projects haven't even thought through their token models before starting to throw money around. Hyperliquid's move is indeed aggressive, but cases like Jupiter and Helium, where pouring in money actually accelerates death, are even more heartbreaking. Having money doesn't mean everything; the key is understanding tokenomics. Large buyback scale ≠ price increase; net flow efficiency is the real indicator. The story of Pump.fun is so ironic. It seems many projects are using money to hard-construct dams, but they can't block the leak of inflation at all. By 2025, the true nature will be revealed. Those who are serious about their work are clearly not just burning money. Projects like Hyperliquid are textbook examples; most others are still blindly guessing.

View OriginalReply0