Hyperliquid’s $780M buyback soars 65% while Jupiter, Bonk, and LayerZero lose $98M

Key Takeaways

How did Hyperliquid’s buyback succeed while others failed?

Hyperliquid spent $780M buying back 34.41M tokens and gained 65% as it is a revenue-generating perpetuals DEX with real token utility. Others failed to yield profit.

 Which buyback programs performed worst?

Bonk led losses at -57%, despite spending $26.65 million, followed by Ether.fi (-31.4%), LayerZero (-31.5%), Kaito (-28%), and Jupiter (-27.5%). 

Seven crypto projects spent $1.1 billion on token buybacks. Only one turned a profit, Hyperliquid. The numbers show buybacks don’t create value—they amplify what already exists.

Hyperliquid wins, six others lose

Data from Tokenomist shows that Hyperliquid dominates the buyback leaderboard. 

Source: Tokenomist

The perpetuals DEX spent $780 million buying back 34.41 million HYPE tokens. The current value is $1.28 billion, while the profit is $508.55 million, representing a margin of over 65.16%.

However, everyone else failed. Bonk lost 57% despite spending $26.65 million.

LayerZero dropped 31.5% after a $100 million buyback. Ether.fi fell 31.4% with $7.73 million spent. Jupiter declined 27.5% despite $62.12 million in buybacks. 

Furthermore, Pump.fun and Kaito also trail negative, and the combined losses are $98 million across these six projects, which spent $321 million on buybacks.

Why Hyperliquid might have won

Hyperliquid generates real revenue from perpetual futures trading, and users require HYPE tokens to receive fee discounts and platform benefits. Buybacks amplified existing organic demand.

HYPE currently trades at $38.43, down 4.33% on the day but maintaining strength after climbing from $35 lows in late October.

The accumulation/distribution indicator shows sustained buying pressure despite short-term volatility.

The massive $780 million buyback created a genuine supply shock on a relatively new token with limited circulation. 

Additionally, Hyperliquid made strategic purchases during the platform’s growth phase, not after reaching peak prices.

Why other projects might have made a loss

Bonk, for one, has no revenue model and limited utility, and the buyback tried to create artificial demand. However, the market saw through it. 

Bonk trades at $0.00001166, down from its October highs of around $0.000027, representing a brutal 56% collapse.

Accumulation indicators show massive distribution with -30.47 trillion tokens leaving holder accounts.

Jupiter faces similar issues. Despite being Solana’s leading DEX, its $62 million buyback couldn’t overcome weak token utility.

LayerZero spent $100 million but offers unclear token value beyond speculation.

The pattern repeats: projects with weak fundamentals often use buybacks as a band-aid. Markets rejected the artificial support.