Hyperliquid’s $780M Buyback Delivers 65% Profit: Why It Won and Others Failed

HYPE Token Surges: Hyperliquid’s Revenue Model Crushes Bonk and LayerZero Buybacks

Hyperliquid’s $780M token buyback delivered a staggering 65% profit, turning a massive repurchase into one of the most successful value-acceleration moves in crypto. While six other high-profile projects burned through $321 million only to watch their tokens crater, Hyperliquid proved that buybacks don’t create value—they supercharge what already exists.

Seven projects. $1.1 billion spent. One winner. The data is brutal, and the lessons are clearer than ever.

Hyperliquid Crushes the Buyback Leaderboard

Tokenomist data crowns Hyperliquid as the undisputed champion of token repurchases. The perpetuals DEX deployed $780 million to retire 34.41 million HYPE tokens. Today, those tokens are worth $1.28 billion—a $508.55 million profit and a 65.16% return on the buyback alone.

That’s not luck. That’s real revenue, real utility, and perfectly timed execution.

In contrast, the other six projects suffered combined losses of $98 million despite spending $321 million. Their buybacks didn’t just fail—they amplified underlying weaknesses.

The Worst Performers: A Rogues’ Gallery of Buyback Blunders

Bonk takes the crown for the most spectacular failure. The meme coin spent $26.65 million on buybacks—only to watch its token plummet 57%. Today, BONK trades at $0.00001166, down over 56% from its October peak near $0.000027. Accumulation/distribution metrics reveal -30.47 trillion tokens in net distribution—holders fleeing in droves.

Ether.fi follows closely with a 31.4% loss after spending $7.73 million. LayerZero burned $100 million and still dropped 31.5%. Jupiter, despite its dominance on Solana, saw a 27.5% decline after a $62.12 million repurchase. Kaito and Pump.fun rounded out the losers, each nursing double-digit percentage declines.

The pattern is unmistakable: buybacks without fundamentals are financial suicide.

Why Hyperliquid Won—and Keeps Winning

Hyperliquid isn’t just a DEX—it’s a revenue-generating machine. The platform earns substantial fees from perpetual futures trading, and HYPE token holders unlock real benefits: fee discounts, staking rewards, governance rights, and priority access to new features. This isn’t speculative utility—it’s daily, measurable demand.

The $780 million buyback created a genuine supply shock. With a relatively new token and limited circulating supply, removing 34.41 million HYPE from the market triggered explosive scarcity. Traders responded. Holders accumulated. The price followed.

Timing was everything. Hyperliquid executed its repurchases during its growth phase, not after hype cycles peaked. HYPE bottomed near $35 in late October and has since held firm, currently trading at $38.43—down just 4.33% on the day but showing sustained buying pressure in on-chain accumulation indicators.

Paxos Unveils USDH Stablecoin for Hyperliquid With HYPE Buyback Incentives

Key success factors:

Real revenue model – Fees from perpetuals trading flow directly into buybacks
Strong token utility – Discounts, staking, governance drive organic demand
Supply discipline – Massive burn during low-circulation growth phase
Strategic timing – Bought the dip, not the top
Transparent execution – On-chain proof of every repurchase

Why the Others Lost: Anatomy of a Buyback Failure

Bonk had no revenue. No utility beyond memes. The $26.65 million buyback was artificial demand in a vacuum—and the market punished it mercilessly. With no fundamental reason to hold BONK, holders dumped at the first sign of weakness. The result? A 57% wipeout.

Jupiter should have been a contender. As Solana’s leading DEX aggregator, it has volume—but its JUP token lacks compelling use cases. Trading fee discounts are marginal. Governance is diluted. The $62 million buyback couldn’t paper over the utility gap. Price collapsed 27.5% anyway.

LayerZero spent $100 million on a token whose value proposition remains murky at best. Cross-chain messaging is technical infrastructure—not a retail magnet. Without clear, immediate benefits for holders, the buyback was perceived as a desperation move. Down 31.5%.

Ether.fi, Kaito, and Pump.fun followed the same script: spend big, promise utility later, watch price crater now. Combined, these six projects lost $98 million in token value—proving that buybacks are not a substitute for product-market fit.

The Bigger Picture: Buybacks Are a Mirror, Not a Magic Wand

Token repurchases don’t create value out of thin air. They reflect and amplify existing strength. Hyperliquid had:

Explosive user growth
Soaring trading volume
Clear token sink mechanics
Transparent treasury management

The others had hype, hype, and more hype—followed by distribution, despair, and deletion from watchlists.

Pro tip for projects: If your token doesn’t have daily active use, revenue generation, or non-speculative demand, a buyback is just expensive performance art.

What’s Next for Hyperliquid?

With $1.28 billion in repurchased token value and 65%+ profit locked in, Hyperliquid isn’t slowing down. The platform continues to dominate perpetuals volume, and HYPE token demand remains robust. Recent on-chain data shows consistent accumulation by large wallets, even during minor pullbacks.

More importantly, Hyperliquid has set a new standard for token economics: revenue in, tokens out, value up. Other projects are watching—and many will copy the model. Few will execute it as cleanly.

Key Takeaways for Investors

Buybacks work when utility is real – Hyperliquid proves it
Artificial demand collapses fast – Bonk, LayerZero, Jupiter learned the hard way
Timing > size – $780M at the right moment beat $100M at the wrong one
Fundamentals trump hype – Always
Check accumulation metrics – They don’t lie

Hyperliquid didn’t just win the buyback war—it rewrote the rulebook. The rest? They’re still counting losses.