What makes Grvt’s buyback and burn more interesting to me is the potential connection between product revenue and token supply. A trading platform generates activity. If that activity translates into sustainable business revenue, and the project uses part of its resources to buy back and permanently burn tokens, you get a model worth watching. @grvt_io has already completed its first buyback and burn, removing 1.1M GRVT from circulation — nearly 1% of the circulating supply at the time of purchase. That’s a real action, not just a roadmap promise. Now look at the bigger picture. Grvt is reporting substantial perp trading volume, while Grvt 2.0 aims to expand beyond trading through products like Grvt Earn and Yield as Margin. If the platform can turn that activity into sustainable revenue, execute its intended monthly buybacks at the issuer’s discretion, and permanently remove purchased tokens from circulation, the combination could create a compelling token-economic model. The key distinction is that buybacks funded by sustainable business performance are more meaningful than token burns without a durable economic engine behind them. Over time, permanent burns can reduce both circulating supply and total supply. If demand remains strong or grows while supply contracts, that can create favorable conditions for the token’s value. Of course, none of this guarantees price appreciation. The real questions are how much revenue the business generates, how buybacks are funded, and whether user activity remains strong without excessive incentives. For me, that’s the Grvt thesis worth tracking: sustainable product usage, real economic activity, and a transparent mechanism for reducing token supply. Volume gets attention. Revenue creates the foundation. And disciplined token burns could help connect the two.