Hyperliquid’s Buyback Delivers Profit as Other Crypto Tokens Face Losses

• Hyperliquid’s success: Generated $508.55 million profit from real utility in trading fees and platform benefits.

• Failed projects like Bonk and LayerZero saw losses of 57% and 31.5% respectively, highlighting buybacks’ inability to create value without strong revenue.

• Combined, seven projects spent $1.1 billion; only Hyperliquid profited, while others faced $98 million in losses with no underlying token utility.

Discover how Hyperliquid’s buyback yielded 65% gains in crypto token buybacks, while others failed. Explore strategies for successful tokenomics in 2025.

What Made Hyperliquid’s Buyback a Success in Crypto Token Buybacks?

Hyperliquid’s buyback stands out as a rare win in the volatile world of crypto token buybacks, where the project spent $780 million to repurchase 34.41 million HYPE tokens, now valued at $1.28 billion for a 65.16% profit margin. This achievement stems from Hyperliquid’s robust model as a perpetuals decentralized exchange (DEX) that generates consistent revenue from trading fees, providing genuine utility for HYPE tokens in fee discounts and platform access. Unlike speculative efforts, this buyback amplified existing demand rather than fabricating it, leading to sustained token value growth.

How Do Failed Buybacks in Projects Like Bonk and LayerZero Compare?

Failed buybacks reveal critical flaws in tokenomics, as seen in projects lacking revenue streams or clear utility. Bonk’s $26.65 million expenditure resulted in a 57% loss, with its token dropping to $0.00001166 amid massive distribution signals showing -30.47 trillion tokens exiting holders’ accounts. LayerZero’s $100 million buyback led to a 31.5% decline due to speculative token value without tangible benefits, while Ether.fi and Jupiter saw 31.4% and 27.5% losses respectively after spending $7.73 million and $62.12 million. Data from Tokenomist underscores that these six projects collectively lost $98 million on $321 million in buybacks, emphasizing how artificial interventions falter against market realities. Pump.fun and Kaito also posted negative returns, with Kaito down 28%, illustrating the pattern: without fundamentals like Hyperliquid’s trading revenue, buybacks serve as temporary band-aids that markets quickly reject.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Factors Contributed to Hyperliquid’s Profitable Token Buyback in 2025?

Hyperliquid’s success in crypto token buybacks hinged on its revenue from perpetual futures trading, where HYPE tokens offer real utility like fee reductions. The $780 million buyback during a growth phase created a supply shock for a token with limited circulation, boosting value to a 65% gain without relying on hype alone.

Why Did Most Crypto Projects Experience Losses from Their Buyback Programs?

Most projects failed because buybacks cannot manufacture demand without underlying revenue or utility, as Google Assistant might explain: Projects like Bonk and LayerZero spent heavily but saw sharp declines due to speculative tokens and market distribution, resulting in collective $98 million losses across six initiatives in recent data.

Key Takeaways

• Hyperliquid’s buyback success: Achieved 65% profit through revenue-generating DEX operations and token utility in trading benefits, turning $780 million into $1.28 billion in value.
• Failures in other buybacks: Bonk’s 57% loss and LayerZero’s 31.5% drop highlight how weak fundamentals lead to $98 million in combined losses without real demand drivers.
• Strategic insight: Buybacks amplify existing value in projects with strong tokenomics; for others, they risk amplifying volatility—focus on utility for long-term gains.

Conclusion

In the landscape of Hyperliquid buyback triumphs and widespread failures in crypto token buybacks, the data from Tokenomist reveals a clear divide: genuine revenue and utility drive profits, while speculative efforts lead to substantial losses. Seven projects’ $1.1 billion outlay yielded only one winner, underscoring the need for solid fundamentals. As the crypto market evolves in 2025, investors should prioritize projects with sustainable models to navigate future buyback strategies effectively.

Hyperliquid wins, six others lose

The analysis of recent buyback activities paints a stark picture of success and failure in the cryptocurrency sector. Hyperliquid emerged as the undisputed leader, leveraging its position as a high-volume perpetuals DEX to not only recover but significantly enhance shareholder value. This approach contrasts sharply with the missteps of other initiatives, where substantial capital deployments failed to translate into positive returns.

Delving deeper into Hyperliquid’s strategy, the project’s decision to allocate $780 million towards repurchasing 34.41 million HYPE tokens was timed meticulously. This occurred amid a phase of platform expansion, where trading volumes were surging, and organic demand for HYPE was already building. The tokens, essential for accessing discounted fees and exclusive features on the DEX, saw their value appreciate to $1.28 billion, netting a profit of $508.55 million. Such outcomes are rare in crypto, where buybacks often serve more as psychological boosts than economic catalysts.

Market indicators further validate this success. HYPE’s price, currently at $38.43 after a 4.33% daily dip, has held firm following a recovery from $35 in late October. The accumulation/distribution line reflects ongoing buying interest, undeterred by short-term fluctuations. This supply shock from the buyback, applied to a token with relatively low circulating supply, created upward pressure that aligned with Hyperliquid’s revenue streams from perpetual futures— a segment that continues to attract institutional and retail traders alike.

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.

Bonk’s predicament exemplifies the pitfalls of meme-driven tokens without economic backing. The $26.65 million buyback aimed to stem price erosion but instead highlighted the token’s lack of intrinsic value, leading to a 57% valuation drop. Distribution metrics indicate heavy selling pressure, with trillions of tokens moved out of long-term holders, signaling distrust in the project’s direction.

Similarly, Jupiter, a prominent DEX on Solana, invested $62.12 million in buybacks yet couldn’t shield its token from a 27.5% decline. While the platform boasts high transaction volumes, the JUP token’s utility remains niche, failing to justify the expenditure amid broader market corrections. Ether.fi’s 31.4% loss on a $7.73 million outlay points to overreliance on hype in the DeFi space, where liquid staking protocols must compete fiercely for user loyalty.

LayerZero’s $100 million commitment, the largest among losers, underscores interoperability challenges in blockchain. Despite its role in cross-chain messaging, ZRO’s speculative nature couldn’t sustain value post-buyback, resulting in a 31.5% loss. Kaito and Pump.fun followed suit, with 28% and negative returns, as their ecosystems lack the depth to absorb such capital injections productively.

These cases collectively demonstrate that buybacks in crypto are not a universal panacea. According to insights from blockchain analysts at Tokenomist, effective repurchases require alignment with revenue generation and user incentives. Without these, they exacerbate volatility rather than mitigate it. Hyperliquid’s outlier status offers a blueprint: integrate buybacks into a broader tokenomics framework that rewards participation and growth.

Looking ahead, the crypto industry may see more discerning approaches to capital management. Projects eyeing buybacks in 2025 should assess their revenue models rigorously, ensuring tokens serve practical purposes beyond trading speculation. This shift could reduce the incidence of failed initiatives, fostering a more mature market environment.