Jupiter Co-Founder Questions JUP Buybacks After $70M Spent

A core assumption of crypto tokenomics is being openly challenged inside Solana’s DeFi ecosystem: do buybacks actually matter anymore?

That question is now front and center at Jupiter, after co-founder Siong Ong publicly questioned whether the exchange’s long-running JUP buyback program has delivered any tangible benefit. Rather than defending the policy, Ong invited the community to consider scrapping it altogether.

His argument was blunt. Over the past year, Jupiter spent more than $70 million repurchasing JUP, yet the token failed to respond in any meaningful way. From Ong’s perspective, that money may have been better used to grow the platform itself – onboarding users, boosting liquidity, and strengthening incentives for active traders rather than shrinking token supply.

From financial engineering to growth-first thinking

Jupiter’s buyback model was not a minor experiment. Since early last year, the protocol committed 50% of its revenue to buying JUP on the open market and locking those tokens for three years. The logic was simple: higher usage equals higher revenue, which equals fewer tokens in circulation.

Ong now appears unconvinced that this loop still works in current market conditions. Instead of continuing to “optimize supply,” he suggested redirecting that capital toward expansion, arguing that adoption and usage ultimately define whether a token has long-term value.

Founders elsewhere are reaching similar conclusions

Ong’s comments were not made in isolation. He explicitly pointed to a parallel decision by Amir Haleem of Nova Labs, who recently said his team is abandoning token buybacks despite strong revenue generation.

Haleem revealed that Helium’s Mobile network brought in millions in monthly revenue, yet buybacks failed to move the market. Nova Labs has since chosen to funnel capital into subscriber growth, network expansion, and real-world usage instead. Ong praised that move, framing it as an example of prioritizing fundamentals over optics.

A community split over what JUP represents

Reaction from the Solana community was immediate – and divided. Some users agreed with Ong, arguing that buybacks are a relic of earlier cycles and that growth spending would do more to strengthen Jupiter’s dominance.

Others strongly disagreed. Critics accused the team of undermining a core promise that tied JUP’s value directly to protocol success. One argument repeated frequently was that without buybacks, Jupiter’s token risks becoming detached from the exchange’s performance, regardless of how much revenue the platform generates.

Ong rejected claims that the discussion signaled a loss of confidence or an attempt to extract value. He emphasized that nearly his entire net worth is tied to JUP, noting that selling would be far easier than publicly questioning a policy if personal gain were the goal.

Staking proposals shut down

As alternatives were floated, some community members proposed routing protocol revenue directly to JUP stakers in SOL or USDC. Supporters claimed this could strengthen token demand while incentivizing holders to advocate for Jupiter.

Ong dismissed the idea outright. He argued that passive staking does not meaningfully grow a trading platform and could weaken Jupiter’s competitive position against other Solana DEXs. In his view, rewarding activity, not inactivity, is what drives long-term relevance.

Jupiter’s scale gives weight to the debate

The timing of the discussion is notable. Jupiter is not a struggling protocol searching for answers. According to DappRadar, Jupiter remains among the most-used decentralized exchanges on Solana, attracting roughly 1.5 million unique wallets over the past month and generating close to $170 million in trading volume.

While Raydium continues to lead in raw volume, Jupiter’s user base places it firmly among Solana’s core trading venues – strengthening Ong’s argument that growth investment, rather than token mechanics, may now offer the highest return.

A wider rethink across crypto

Jupiter’s internal debate reflects a broader shift across the industry. Token buybacks, once seen as a clean way to reward holders, are increasingly being questioned by founders who see little market response to them.

As crypto matures, the focus may be moving away from engineered scarcity and toward adoption, revenue durability, and real usage. Whether Jupiter ultimately abandons buybacks or not, the discussion itself signals a change in how leading builders think about aligning tokens with platforms in the next phase of DeFi.

The information provided in this article is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or trading advice. Coindoo.com does not endorse or recommend any specific investment strategy or cryptocurrency. Always conduct your own research and consult with a licensed financial advisor before making any investment decisions.

Related stories

Next article