Crypto trader Ansem threw cold water on the idea that token buybacks alone can create lasting crypto value, using two high-profile projects to make his point. In a July 17 post on X, Ansem compared Hyperliquid’s HYPE and Pump.fun’s PUMP. Both platforms generate large revenues and run recurring token repurchase programs, yet the market values them very differently. His key figures: - Hyperliquid: roughly $800 million in annualized revenue; HYPE trading near a $65 billion fully diluted valuation (FDV). - Pump.fun: roughly $440 million in annualized revenue; PUMP trading at about a $1.4 billion FDV. “I have a thesis that buybacks don’t actually work,” he wrote, arguing that the sharp valuation gap shows buybacks aren’t the sole determinant of price. Why the disconnect? Ansem says it comes down to trust, community alignment and consistent execution — what he calls a “trust premium” that pure financial metrics can’t capture. He points to Hyperliquid as a team that built confidence by shipping products, avoiding overpromises and rewarding measurable user activity. Hyperliquid also runs one of crypto’s largest repurchase programs: its Assistance Fund has directed most protocol fees into open-market HYPE buys and had spent more than $1.3 billion on buybacks by May 2026, per prior crypto.news reporting. Pump.fun has also invested heavily in PUMP support but still struggles with price appreciation. Earlier reporting said Pump.fun spent about $233 million buying back 62.2 billion PUMP by early January and later executed a large burn. On July 15, Pump.fun distributed 57.279 billion PUMP (roughly $86.49 million) to 121 team and investor wallets, starting a three-year vesting schedule after a one-year lockup — transfers that made the tokens movable but did not confirm any sales. Ansem highlights an unresolved airdrop as a possible source of weaker community alignment for Pump.fun. Co-founder Alon Cohen told users in July 2025 that an airdrop remained planned but wouldn’t arrive immediately. Ansem’s take: Pump.fun could potentially narrow some of the valuation gap by improving communication and delivering the expected distribution — though he stresses this is a market thesis, not a price prediction. He also used Bitcoin as an extreme example of trust’s power: no operational revenue, fixed supply and established rules can still support massive valuation through network confidence alone. Bottom line: recurring buybacks can reduce supply and return capital to token holders, but according to Ansem, they don’t automatically translate into higher valuations without the backing of community trust, clear execution and alignment with user expectations.
Ansem: Buybacks Alone Don't Create Value — HYPE vs. PUMP Valuation Gap Explained
ChainGPTShare
Summary
On-chain news highlights a key debate as crypto trader Ansem breaks down the HYPE vs. PUMP valuation gap. Both tokens see buybacks and revenue, but HYPE trades at $65B FDV versus PUMP’s $1.4B. Ansem points to trust and execution as the difference, calling it a 'trust premium.' Hyperliquid has spent $1.3B on buybacks, while Pump.fun has spent $233M and faces airdrop delays. New token listings often ride hype, but Ansem says buybacks alone don’t build lasting value.
Source:Show original
Disclaimer: The information on this page may have been obtained from third parties and does not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of KuCoin. This content is provided for general informational purposes only, without any representation or warranty of any kind, nor shall it be construed as financial or investment advice. KuCoin shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any outcomes resulting from the use of this information.
Investments in digital assets can be risky. Please carefully evaluate the risks of a product and your risk tolerance based on your own financial circumstances. For more information, please refer to our Terms of Use and Risk Disclosure.