Throughout 2025, buybacks using protocol revenue emerged as one of the simplest means of transferring value from applications to tokens.
But despite revenue-printing machines like pump.fun and Jupiter pouring millions into buybacks, altcoins like $PUMP and $JUP haven’t fared much better than coins without supportive tokenomics.
Have crypto investors overindexed on the importance of buybacks, and what other alternatives exist that bring value to holders?
On January 2, Helium founder and CEO Amir Haleem announced that the popular Solana DePIN protocol would henceforth stop allocating protocol revenue in $HNT buybacks.
While clarifying that data credits would continue to be burned for carrier offload, Haleem lamented that Helium had poured its revenue, which reached over $3.4M in October alone, “into a hole.”
Helium’s move away from buybacks prompted wider discussion across the Solana community. Reinforcing Haleem’s position, Jupiter co-founder Siong Ong remarked that Jupiter spent over $70M on buybacks since allocating 50% of its revenue to $JUP accumulation, with little effect on price.
From a numbers perspective, it’s hard to argue against the facts. Even with apps like pump.fun, undoubtedly one of the most successful crypto applications of all time, committing 100% of protocol revenue to token buybacks, altcoins have failed to stem the bleeding.
Amidst declining appetite for memecoin trading, pump.fun has still spent over $230M on buybacks since August 2025. Despite this gargantuan effort towards supporting asset value, is down 72% from all-time highs, currently trading 41% lower than its ICO price.
Whilst many investors are crying foul on programmatic buybacks, others are still in favor of strategic buybacks, wherein projects commit to purchasing tokens at opportune moments or prices.
However, this approach invites further cynicism of buybacks in general. If the protocol is not willing to purchase tokens at a certain price, why should anyone else?
While teams like Helium and Jupiter seem to be moving away from buybacks, Solana DeFi OGs like Raydium intend to adhere to the model. Since launch, Raydium’s buyback program has purchased over $200M worth of $RAY tokens.
[https://x.com/0xINFRA/status/2007466039219765304]
Raydium Lead 0xInfra affirms that examples of failed buybacks are plagued by more nuanced tokenomics issues, like supply overhang and token issuance.
For example, there’s an argument that buybacks don’t make much sense if they don’t sufficiently offset the value of new tokens coming into circulation.
For those who believe that crypto’s buyback experiment has failed, the follow-up question is inevitable: How else can protocols bring value to their native tokens?
Chiming in on the debate, Solana Labs co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko suggested that tokens staked over long time horizons could enable holders to claim protocol assets.
Step Group co-founder George Harrap has hinted that the conglomerate is exploring this method, suggesting that staked $STEP could eventually be burnt in exchange for a proportionate share of POL (protocol-owned liquidity) in the form of Remora Market’s rSTOCKs.
Other mechanics include staking tokens to receive a share of protocol revenue paid out in $SOL or $USDC, as popularized by DefiTuna.
Meanwhile, Solana’s passionate futarchy enthusiasts contend that ownership coins and MetaDAO-powered decision markets offer the most elegant solution to the token value problem.
Alongside the recent unveiling of Colosseum’s STAMP contract, which seeks to replace the contentious dual equity + token legal structure, more teams are actively exploring how futarchy and decision markets can give token holders true exposure to an application’s success.
Disclaimer: SolanaFloor and Remora Markets are owned and operated by Step Group
Is the bull market back on?
