Token buybacks spent $880M+ last year, but prices stalled anyway – one number now decides if they work
Optimism introduced a 12-month token buyback program on Jan. 8, allocating 50% of Superchain income to month-to-month OP token purchases beginning in February. The buyback strain is estimated at roughly $9.1 million yearly, primarily based on the previous yr’s 5,868 ETH in collected charges.
The proposal frames the shift as a transition from pure governance token to value-accrual mechanism tied to ecosystem progress, but the timing raises a sharper query: do buybacks nonetheless work when the market has already priced within the playbook?
Token buybacks dominated crypto narratives by way of 2025 as protocols responded to sustained criticism over low-float, high-fully-diluted-valuation tokenomics.
CoinGecko information reveals buyback spending accelerated sharply within the second half of the yr, with Hyperliquid committing $644.6 million as of October, by far the biggest program, adopted by Pump.enjoyable (PUMP) at $138.2 million, Jupiter (JUP) at $57.9 million, and Ethena (ENA) at $40.7 million.
These packages generated preliminary worth surges and reframed tokens as claims on future money flows relatively than pure governance rights.
However, by year-end, the sample had reversed: buyback bulletins carried much less punch, prices stalled regardless of continued repurchases, and critics started questioning whether or not your entire mechanism amounted to monetary theater that starved protocols of capital higher spent on progress.
The core situation shouldn’t be whether or not buybacks can assist prices, as they demonstrably can when structured accurately, but whether or not the situations that made early packages efficient nonetheless maintain because the technique turns into saturated and market contributors refocus on unlock schedules and income sturdiness.
Optimism’s proposal arrives on the inflection level the place this debate shifts from theoretical to testable.
When buybacks labored and why the impact pale
Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund grew to become the defining case research for programmatic buybacks funded by buying and selling charges.
Data from ASXN reveals that the Assistance Fund already bought back 38.23 million HYPE tokens, equal to 16% of the circulating provide, and nearly $1 billion as HYPE traded at $25.80.
The numbers created a valuation reset as markets started pricing HYPE as a perpetual declare on change income relatively than a speculative governance asset.
JUP adopted the same path, committing 50% of buying and selling charges to buybacks with prolonged lock durations, and noticed sharp repricing when the coverage launched.
Pump.fun structured its program round platform charges generated by meme token launches, and already spent $233 million to buy 62.2 billion PUMP as of Jan. 6. According to information from Blockworks, that is equal to six.2% of whole provide.
ENA paired a $40.7 million buyback in October with high-profile financing bulletins tied to its stablecoin enlargement, amplifying the narrative round sustainable income sources.
These packages shared three options that drove preliminary success.
First, they anchored a brand new valuation framework by changing tokens into yield-bearing property with measurable cashflow streams.
Second, they operated transparently with rule-based execution tied to protocol utilization, making future buyback flows modelable for market contributors.
Third, they launched when tokens traded at depressed valuations relative to income, that means buyback {dollars} retired significant percentages of provide.
The mechanic breaks down when these situations reverse.
Buyback yield compresses as market caps rise, as the identical greenback circulate retires a shrinking share of provide, decreasing marginal impression.
Additionally, unlock schedules overwhelm repurchase flows when massive tranches of tokens hit circulation. Tokenomist reveals Hyperliquid’s subsequent unlock arrives Feb. 6, with solely 23.8% of whole provide at present circulating, that means future dilution dwarfs present buybacks.
Revenue cyclicality exposes the pro-cyclical entice: protocols purchase most aggressively when charges peak throughout bull runs, leaving them with depleted treasuries and costly price bases when markets flip.
CoinGecko explicitly famous that Pump.enjoyable’s buyback purchases had been within the crimson after the October 2025 crash, a stark illustration of shopping for high when capability is best relatively than shopping for low when assist is most wanted.
The downside compounds when buybacks path to treasuries relatively than everlasting burns.
Optimism’s proposal explicitly directs repurchased OP into treasury reserves, preserving the choice to burn later or stake tokens but leaving markets unsure about whether or not the availability discount is everlasting.
This design selection displays a deliberate trade-off of sustaining governance flexibility versus creating ironclad shortage, but it additionally introduces reissuance threat that weakens the supply-tightening narrative.
Capital allocation debate
Criticism of buybacks sharpened by way of late 2025. Not as a result of the mechanism failed categorically but as a result of protocols confronted more and more stark alternative prices.
Token buybacks characterize a capital allocation coverage that competes instantly with spending on safety, liquidity incentives, developer grants, and ecosystem enlargement.
When protocols function in land-grab mode, competing for customers and liquidity, markets start questioning whether or not routing income to buybacks sacrifices progress for short-term worth assist.
This rigidity mirrors decades-old debates in conventional finance round company share repurchases versus reinvestment.
Harvard Law’s company governance analysis frames the trade-off as a function of return profiles: buybacks make sense when inner reinvestment alternatives provide decrease returns than returning capital to shareholders, but grow to be value-destructive when they starve high-return tasks.
Crypto protocols face the identical calculus with larger stakes, as aggressive moats are narrower, switching prices are decrease, and ecosystems can collapse if community results fail to compound.
Optimism’s 50-50 break up between buybacks and actively managed treasury deployment makes an attempt to navigate this rigidity.
By committing solely half of Superchain income to repurchases, the protocol preserves capability for progress spending whereas nonetheless creating structural demand for OP tokens.
The design acknowledges that buybacks alone can’t construct moats, as they can solely return worth generated by current moats.
Supply math determines whether or not buybacks matter
The mechanical query is whether or not buyback flows exceed dilution on a web foundation. Tokenomist’s unlock calendars reveal the scope of future provide strain throughout main buyback packages.
Hyperliquid faces an unlock on Feb. 6, with 76% of the overall provide nonetheless locked.
Ethena’s subsequent unlock arrives on Feb. 2, with 47% of the availability nonetheless circulating. Optimism unlocks tokens on Jan. 10, simply weeks earlier than buybacks start.
These cliff occasions can overwhelm month-to-month repurchase flows if the unlocked provide hits liquid markets sooner than buybacks can take up it.
The buyback protection ratio, outlined as repurchase {dollars} divided by newly unlocked plus emitted provide, determines the route of web provide.
When protection exceeds 1, provide contracts and worth assist grow to be mechanical.
Below 1, buybacks gradual dilution but do not reverse it, and the market treats them as non permanent friction relatively than structural demand.
Pump.enjoyable’s $138.2 million in buybacks retired 3% of provide by way of October, but with 41% nonetheless locked and a July 2026 unlock approaching, this system’s long-term provide impression stays contingent on whether or not payment income scales sooner than scheduled unlocks.
Execution methodology provides one other layer of complexity. Optimism’s proposal specifies month-to-month over-the-counter purchases, which scale back fast worth impression by preserving transactions off public order books but additionally get rid of the seen demand sign that open-market buybacks create.
OTC execution prioritizes provide discount over worth discovery, a selection that is smart when the objective is long-term float administration relatively than short-term worth assist.
Optimism’s guess on structural redesign
Optimism positions its buyback program not as a worth protection but as a token redesign, shifting OP from a pure governance instrument to a value-accrual mechanism aligned with Superchain’s progress.
The framing issues as a result of it units expectations round scale and timing.
At $9.1 million yearly primarily based on trailing 12-month income, this system represents roughly 0.7% of OP’s $1.33 billion absolutely diluted valuation.
That’s a modest buyback yield by DeFi requirements, suggesting Optimism views this system as a basis to construct on as Superchain income scales relatively than a near-term worth catalyst.
The 50-50 income break up turns into the important thing design selection. By preserving half of incoming charges for lively treasury administration, Optimism maintains the firepower to fund ecosystem incentives, safety upgrades, and liquidity provisioning whereas nonetheless creating structural token demand.
This method acknowledges that buybacks can’t substitute for progress, as they can solely compound worth generated by utilization, and that prematurely ravenous the treasury dangers undermining the income engine that funds repurchases within the first place.
The strategic query is whether or not Superchain’s income grows quick sufficient to make buybacks materials.
If layer-2 transaction volume and software adoption speed up, payment assortment scales and buyback capability compound.
If progress stalls or competitors from different rollup frameworks intensifies, this system will stay a rounding error relative to OP’s market cap and unlock schedule.
The Jan. 10 unlock arriving earlier than buybacks start will take a look at how markets weigh fast provide strain towards ahead structural demand.
What buybacks can and can’t do
Token buybacks work when they alter supply-demand dynamics sufficient to drive repricing, but that final result depends upon 4 testable situations.
First, buyback {dollars} have to be massive relative to free float and each day buying and selling quantity. Retiring 0.5% of provide yearly is noise, whereas retiring 5% creates mechanical shortage.
Second, buybacks should exceed dilution on a web foundation over rolling quarterly home windows, that means the protection ratio stays above 1 persistently relatively than episodically.
Third, income sources should show sturdy by way of market cycles so buyback capability does not evaporate precisely when assist is most wanted.
Fourth, provide discount have to be everlasting by way of burns or locked treasury governance, eliminating reissuance threat that enables markets to low cost the shortage narrative.
| Token | Rule-based method | Transparent execution | Durable funding supply | Material buyback yield at launch | Launched at “low cost” valuation vs income | Coverage ratio > 1 (buybacks > dilution) | Supply discount everlasting | Outcome (up to now) | If it pale, the doubtless mechanical motive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HYPE (Hyperliquid) |  |
|
 (charges are cyclical) |
|
|
 / (massive future unlock overhang) |
(relies upon if handled as burn vs held) |
labored early, impact debated now |
Yield compression as worth rerated + upcoming unlocks dominate web provide math |
| JUP (Jupiter) | |
|
(volume-driven) |
/ |
/ |
(depends upon emissions/unlocks) |
/ (locks assist; burn/treasury particulars matter) |
labored early, muted later |
Rerating decreased marginal impression; market shifts focus to dilution + income sturdiness |
| PUMP (Pump.enjoyable) | |
|
/ (extremely cyclical; headline/authorized threat) |
|
/ |
(massive locked provide + future unlocks) |
 (burn vs held not all the time clear in summaries) |
labored early, then weakened |
Pro-cyclical entice: largest purchase capability at peaks; drawdowns make “buyback story” much less convincing |
| ENA (Ethena) | (partly narrative-linked) |
|
(depends upon stablecoin/financing + income) |
/ (smaller vs mcap) |
|
/ (unlock schedule can dwarf buybacks) |
|
combined |
If buybacks are small and dilution is massive, worth impression turns into “friction,” not a driver |
| OP (Optimism) | (50% income, month-to-month) |
(OTC reduces seen sign) |
(wants Superchain income progress) |
(modest vs FDV) |
 |
/ (near-term unlocks; buybacks begin later) |
(routes to treasury; burn elective later) |
TBD |
Might not “pop” worth if scale is small, OTC hides the bid, and permanence is discounted |
When protocols fulfill all 4 situations, buybacks compound into structural tailwinds that make tokens behave like yield devices with embedded name choices on income progress.
When any situation fails, buybacks devolve into one-time repricing occasions whose results fade as markets reweight unlock schedules and aggressive positioning.
The criticism that buybacks characterize narrative gimmickry relatively than elementary worth holds when packages are discretionary, opaque, funded by non-recurring sources, or dwarfed by upcoming unlocks.
It collapses when packages are rule-based, clear, funded by sturdy protocol charges, and enormous sufficient to persistently exceed dilution.
The distinction shouldn’t be philosophical: it is mechanical, measurable, and falsifiable.
Optimism’s program assessments whether or not a intentionally modest, OTC-executed, treasury-routed buyback can nonetheless reframe token economics when the market has already absorbed the playbook.
It serves for example of the effectiveness of token buyback packages.
If Superchain income scales and buybacks persist by way of a number of quarters whereas the treasury concurrently funds ecosystem progress, the mannequin turns into a blueprint for sustainable worth accrual.
If income stalls, unlocks dominate, or the market treats buybacks as monetary engineering divorced from utilization progress, the experiment confirms that buybacks alone can’t manufacture moats.
The reply determines whether or not token economics nonetheless matter or whether or not liquidity and narrative have already priced in each structural lever protocols can pull.
The put up Token buybacks spent $880M+ last year, but prices stalled anyway – one number now decides if they work appeared first on CryptoSlate.
