There are quite a few projects where protocol revenue is used for token buybacks, but there are very few projects where token buybacks and stable price increases coexist.
With monthly revenues in the tens of millions, @HyperliquidX is one, with a revenue of $85 million in the past month; with revenues in the millions, @pendle_fi is one, with a revenue of $3.6 million in the past month; and @defidotapp is another with undisclosed confidential data.
@HyperliquidX uses all protocol revenue to buy back $HYPE, with 46% allocated to the supply side HLP, 54% allocated to the assistance fund AF, and some being partially burned; since the first token buyback, $HYPE has increased by 330%;
@pendle_fi executes its protocol revenue buyback through Pendle DAO via community governance proposals: 30% of protocol revenue is used to buy back $PENDLE, with 70% directly burned and 30% used to reward stakers and LPs; since the first token buyback, $PENDLE has increased by 39%;
@defidotapp also conducts buybacks through community governance proposals; it has completed one buyback through the DIP-004 proposal, using 80% of protocol revenue to buy back $HOME tokens; since the proposal passed, $HOME tokens have increased by 39%;
Currently, the second buyback proposal DIP-005 is underway, and it can basically be confirmed that it will pass. If this proposal passes, it will buy back $HOME distributed in Kaito's second season event at a coefficient of 1.5, turning the negative impact of Kaito's activity airdrop inflation into a positive deflationary benefit of 1.5 times buyback.
Judging whether the protocol token value is underestimated based on protocol revenue is unfair; protocol revenue should be reflected in the long-term empowerment of the token.
Buybacks should not be used as a cover for stakeholders to offload their interests, but should serve as a positive flywheel driving stable increases in token prices.
