{
  "id": 5567842,
  "title": "Token buybacks are booming. But are they good for crypto projects?",
  "url": "https://urgent.news/2026/09/04/token-buybacks-are-booming-but-are-they-good-for-crypto-projects",
  "topic": "finance",
  "section": "Finance & Markets",
  "published": "2026-09-04T13:30:00.000Z",
  "source": {
    "name": "Cointelegraph",
    "slug": "cointelegraph",
    "url": "https://cointelegraph.com/magazine/token-buybacks-are-booming-but-are-they-good-for-crypto-projects"
  },
  "original_language": "en",
  "account": "Token buybacks, where crypto projects spend revenue to purchase their own tokens, have surged in 2026. The practice, which has seen approximately $640 million spent so far, is up around 17% from the same period last year. Hyperliquid and Pump.fun account for nearly 90% of the current spend. Buybacks can create demand for a token while burns reduce supply, potentially increasing value. This dynamic can lead to upward pressure on the token price and give holders a tangible connection to the economic activity on the underlying protocol.\n\nHowever, there are potential downsides. Every dollar a protocol spends on buybacks is a dollar that could have been used for hiring developers, expanding the business, strengthening its balance sheet, or building its product. As buybacks become more popular, the question arises: are they actually good for the projects using them?\n\nBuybacks create an implicit connection between the success of the protocol and the value of its token, a challenge the industry has long struggled with. They also make token success more directly tied to the platform's adoption, an effective way to accrue value to token holders.\n\nHowever, buybacks are a tax-efficient way to return revenue to holders, as users don't face hefty tax bills on dividends or rewards. Nonetheless, the bigger question is whether buying your own token is the best use of a project's funds. With some protocols reinvesting capital at attractive returns, buybacks may not always be the most valuable use of funds.\n\nWhile buybacks can support token economics without improving the underlying business, there's no guarantee that buybacks will translate into higher token prices. For example, Pump.fun's aggressive buybacks and burns have not boosted the token's price, which remains around 50% below its September 2025 all-time high. Similarly, Uniswap's UNI token has seen gains after UNIfication proposal unveiling, but half of those gains have been lost. These examples prompt investors to debate whether startup-like projects would be better served by reducing revenue committed to buybacks and burns and reinvesting more in the team and the project itself.\n\nIn conclusion, while token buybacks may superficially resemble share buyback programs, they don't necessarily make tokens more like stocks. A sustainable protocol may find buybacks to be the best use of some surplus funds, but an unsustainable protocol may not benefit from buybacks alone.",
  "summary": "Crypto projects are spending hundreds of millions buying their own tokens. But are buybacks creating lasting value — or just making tokens look more valuable than they really are?",
  "key_points": [],
  "editors_take": null,
  "illustration": null,
  "coverage": {
    "outlets": 1,
    "also_reported_by": []
  },
  "ai_generated": true,
  "disclaimer": "Summaries, key points and the editor’s take are written by software from other outlets’ reporting and may contain errors — always check the linked original."
}