Buybacks become a lifeline for project teams—can they truly restore market confidence?
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Buybacks become a lifeline for project teams—can they truly restore market confidence?
From a pricing perspective, the short-term boost effect is evident. In the long term, however, it is not a panacea.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsBy 1912212.eth, Foresight News
Since the beginning of this year, token buybacks have gradually become a common strategy for cryptocurrency projects to cope with market volatility. Particularly in early 2025, amid overlapping global economic uncertainty and broader adjustments in the crypto market, many token prices have dropped significantly—some even hitting all-time lows. Against this backdrop, numerous projects have announced or implemented large-scale buyback programs, aiming to stabilize prices and boost investor confidence by reducing circulating supply.
Recently, DeFi projects such as dYdX and Jupiter have announced token buybacks, and even the co-founder of the new public chain Berachain has revealed efforts to repurchase tokens from seed and Series A investors. So why are so many VC-backed tokens, once abandoned by the market, now frequently announcing buyback plans? Is this a sudden awakening of responsibility—or merely pressure-driven necessity? And do buybacks truly support token prices?
Token Prices Under Pressure: Projects Begin Self-Rescue
The crypto market at the start of 2025 was far from calm. Global macroeconomic uncertainty, regulatory pressures, and declining investor risk appetite triggered sharp corrections across altcoins, with some tokens dropping more than 80%. Facing dual challenges of community skepticism and financial strain, project teams have turned to token buybacks as a form of self-rescue—reducing circulating supply to ease selling pressure and signal long-term value commitment. This strategy draws inspiration from traditional finance, where companies buy back shares to indicate undervaluation and improve earnings per share.
In the crypto space, Binance set an early benchmark through its successful model of buying back and burning BNB. Recently, amid widespread retail criticism over collapsing VC token prices, some project teams have shifted from silence to tentative proposals—and eventually direct announcements—that part of protocol revenue will be allocated toward buybacks.
In March, dYdX announced it would use 25% of monthly net protocol fees to buy back DYDX tokens from the open market. The founder of AAVE also unveiled a new proposal on Twitter to launch a staking module designed to facilitate AAVE buybacks and fee conversions. Offchain Labs, the development team behind Arbitrum, announced a strategic purchase program to increase its holdings of ARB via public markets and other channels. Even contributors to Jito Foundation, a Solana-based project, initiated discussions around token buybacks and reward mechanisms.
In January, Jupiter declared that 50% of its fee revenue would fund JUP buybacks. It later added that repurchased JUP tokens would be locked for three years. By the end of March, over $9 million worth of tokens had already been bought back.
Under mounting market pressure, many project teams have finally realized that the mindset of "token price doesn't matter" is flawed. Prolonged weakness in token price inevitably erodes community confidence and drives participants away.
Buybacks Are No Miracle Cure
As an economic tool, buybacks have multidimensional impacts. From a price perspective, their short-term uplifting effect is evident. According to supply-demand principles, reducing circulation while demand remains constant tends to push prices upward. Many projects have indeed seen brief price surges following buyback announcements. On March 24, when the DYDX buyback plan was announced, the token rose from $0.65 to a high of $0.76. On January 26, after Jupiter’s buyback announcement, the price climbed from a daily low of $0.89 to a peak of $1.28.
However, these effects are often fleeting. Especially in bearish markets, external selling pressure can quickly erase gains. In the long run, price trends depend more on fundamental project performance than mere supply reduction. For example, GMX and other projects have spent millions buying back their tokens, yet prices later fell below their average buyback cost—demonstrating that buybacks are not a panacea.
For ecosystem health, buybacks are a double-edged sword. They require tapping into protocol revenues or treasury reserves, potentially diverting funds from product development and ecosystem expansion. Smaller or mid-sized projects that over-rely on buybacks may undermine their long-term competitiveness. However, some projects choose to reinvest repurchased tokens back into the ecosystem—for user incentives or liquidity pool support. This “buyback-and-reuse” approach is more sustainable compared to the traditional “buyback-and-burn” model.
Investor confidence is another critical dimension. Buybacks are typically viewed as a signal of a project team's belief in its future, helping to calm community fears during downturns. Yet if buybacks fail to materialize or underperform expectations, they may trigger a crisis of trust. Historically, some projects have been accused of using buybacks to create artificial booms, or transferring tokens to controlled wallets instead of destroying them—seriously damaging community trust. Transparency and execution capability are therefore paramount.
Buybacks also carry risks. Frequent or opaque buybacks may raise suspicions of market manipulation—especially in the unregulated crypto environment, where authorities like the U.S. SEC could step in. Excessive buybacks may lead to overly low circulating supply, harming trading activity and market depth, even threatening liquidity. If a project’s revenue stream is narrow or the market remains weak, the financial sustainability of ongoing buybacks becomes questionable.
Looking ahead, buyback strategies may evolve. Decentralized governance could allow communities to participate in decisions via DAOs, enhancing transparency. Dynamic buyback mechanisms powered by smart contracts might automatically adjust buyback pace based on market conditions. Integration with staking rewards could also create positive feedback loops. For project teams, successful buybacks require disclosing funding sources and execution details, balancing short-term benefits with long-term growth, and continuing to prioritize product innovation and user acquisition. For investors, amid the current buyback frenzy, rationality is key—focus should remain on fundamentals rather than short-term price moves.
Conclusion
The recent wave of token buybacks among crypto projects is both an emergency response to market downturns and an active attempt to refine tokenomics. While capable of providing short-term boosts to price and sentiment, their long-term effectiveness hinges on execution quality and broader market conditions. Buybacks are no miracle solution—their success ultimately depends on whether projects can chart a sustainable path through turbulence. As the industry matures and technology advances, this strategy may grow more diverse, injecting fresh vitality into the crypto ecosystem.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Foresight News
