Some thoughts: -Hyperliquid’s unique buyback success led protocols to believe they could replicate the results. However, Hyperliquid had something no one could copy: a clear, direct value loop: protocol usage → fees → 97% buybacks, and until recently they had no sell pressure which is why it worked. Now that they have sell pressure --> token down. -The price didn't move much for JUP, but the price would have been much lower now without the buybacks. It's also worth noting that unlocks started 1 week before buybacks started. -Saw someone argue for redirecting buyback funds into staking rewards, potentially generating 25% APY for holders. Interesting thought, and I get where it is coming from (the hope is that more people will HODL the token), but wouldn't people just sell the staking rewards? -The main issue is that crypto tokens don't have any fundamental value, unlike stocks, but yet we try to treat them as they have value. On Wall Street, if a company decides to do a buyback, it is because the founders/the board see this as the best use of money. Also, they are only buying back shares when they feel the price is severely mispriced. In crypto it is the opposite, protocols have been buying tokens non stop no matter what the price is. Without strong reasons to hold JUP, users simply sell tokens into buyback liquidity. -The crypto industry is too blended by Hyperliquid's super success which is not possible to replicate. Just a reminder that Jeff has a HFT firm and didn't need to do MM deals, andalso didn't need VCs because it is self funded. If I remember correctly the team only consists of like 11 people or so, a super lean business raking in loads of money. With that said I think even Hyperliquid should use some of their funds to growth purposes. -IMO buybacks in crypto is a defensive mindset as capital should go towards growth (expanding the company, buying other protocols, try to increase the user base, etc.).(Route 2 FI)