Jupiter buybacks amounting to $70 million in 2025 failed to halt the JUP token’s brutal decline, as $1.2 billion in upcoming unlocks overwhelmed the effort. The token has cratered 89% from its peak, exposing how traditional repurchase strategies crumble under relentless supply pressure in crypto markets. Founders are now questioning if burning cash on buybacks makes any sense when emissions and unlocks dominate.
This isn’t just Jupiter’s headache; it’s a symptom of deeper issues in Solana’s ecosystem, where high-velocity token releases mock short-term defenses. Community backlash is brewing, with calls to pivot funds toward user growth instead. As Jupiter tokens face monthly dumps of 53 million JUP through June 2026, the circulating supply has ballooned 150% since launch.
Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko weighs in with a sharper idea, but will it stick? Let’s dissect why Jupiter buybacks flopped and what alternatives might actually work.
Why Jupiter Buybacks Couldn’t Fight the Unlock Tsunami
Jupiter’s $70 million buyback spree looked bold on paper, but it barely dented the token’s slide. Covering just 6% of unlocked supply, these repurchases were like mopping the floor during a flood. Founder Siong openly admitted the futility, sparking a community firestorm on X.
“We spent more than $70 million on buybacks last year, and the price obviously didn’t move much,” Siong posted, proposing to redirect funds to growth incentives for users old and new. This shift from defensive price propping to ecosystem expansion highlights a core tension in crypto: short-term optics versus long-term viability. Divided reactions poured in, with some cheering the realism and others fearing accelerated dumps.
The math is merciless. Monthly unlocks of 53 million JUP persist through mid-2026, despite three-year lockups on 100 million tokens. This structural selling has inflated supply dramatically, rendering buybacks a drop in the ocean.
The Numbers Behind the Failure
Diving into the data, JUP’s price chart tells a grim story: an 89% drop from highs amid consistent unlock pressure. Those $70 million repurchased a fraction of the influx, unable to stem the tide as circulating supply surged 150%. It’s a classic case of fighting fire with a squirt gun.
Community analysts point to Solana’s internalized dynamics—frequent team unlocks and insider sales—as the real culprits. Buybacks become theater when emissions outpace them. For context, compare this to broader token unlocks plaguing the market, where projects routinely underestimate supply shocks.
Critics argue utility tokens aren’t equity; repurchases create fleeting pumps but fail against dominant selling. Jupiter’s experience underscores why static strategies flop in high-emission environments. Dynamic adjustments, like tying buybacks to valuations, might fare better, but hindsight is 20/20.
Community Backlash and Founder Pivot
Siong’s proposal to pause buybacks and fund rewards divided the crowd. Proponents see it as pragmatic, freeing cash for subsidies that could attract real users. Detractors warn of signaling weakness, potentially inviting more sells.
This mirrors patterns in Solana projects, where hype fades against unlock realities. Jupiter’s DEX dominance doesn’t shield it from tokenomics pitfalls. The debate reveals a maturing community demanding substance over hype.
Ultimately, halting buybacks risks short-term pain but could foster sustainable growth. It’s a gamble on users over speculators.
Solana Co-Founder’s Smarter Playbook
Anatoly Yakovenko, Solana’s co-founder, cut through the noise with a forward-thinking fix: stash profits for future buybacks and layer in staking rewards. This forces unlocks to price in anticipated repurchases, aligning incentives for holders.
“Protocols should actually stash the cash for a future buyback. This would force all the unlocks to trade at the future expected post buyback price,” Yakovenko tweeted. He added staking for one-year locks to let balancers grow their claims as the treasury swells. It’s capital formation over knee-jerk spending.
This model extends fund utility, anchoring token value to real growth. In Solana’s high-velocity world, it counters emissions by rewarding commitment.
Staking Rewards as the Anchor
Yakovenko’s staking pitch targets long-term holders: lock for a year, earn yields from balance sheet growth. Stakers net bigger claims, creating a flywheel against dumps. It’s elegant—unlocks trade at post-buyback prices, deterring flips.
Contrast this with Jupiter’s immediate buybacks, which vanished into the void. Staking builds loyalty, much like Ethereum whales accumulating amid hesitation. Data shows locked supply stabilizes prices in bear phases.
Risks remain: low adoption could leave yields diluted. But if executed, it reframes tokens as productive assets, not lotto tickets. Jupiter could test this to reclaim narrative control.
Broader tokenomics lessons apply: align emissions with utility to avoid dilution traps.
Future Buybacks Done Right
Stashing cash defers gratification, pricing in value creation. Unlocks happen, but markets anticipate the rebound, compressing downside. Yakovenko’s seen this in Solana’s resilience.
Implementation needs transparency: clear vesting schedules and treasury reports. Pair with proof-of-reserves style audits to build trust. Jupiter’s $70M lesson proves timing trumps volume.
This isn’t foolproof—macro dumps ignore tokenomics—but it’s savvier than blind repurchasing.
Helium’s Parallel Debacle Signals Industry Wake-Up
Helium’s HNT buyback suspension echoes Jupiter’s woes: markets ignored repurchases, prompting a pivot to growth. Generating $3.4M monthly from Helium Mobile, they chose subscribers and hotspots over token torches.
“The market doesn’t seem to care about projects buying their tokens back off the market, so we are going to stop wasting our money,” founder Amir Haleem posted. It’s a blunt admission that utility trumps optics in non-equity tokens.
Both cases spotlight crypto’s buyback blind spot: structural sells overwhelm. Solana’s ecosystem amplifies this with team unlocks and emissions.
Utility Tokens vs. Short-Term Fixes
Critics nail it: tokens as vouchers, not stocks, mean buybacks yield pumps, not fundamentals. Helium and Jupiter prove structural pressure wins. Dynamic tools like valuation-triggered buys or staking might evolve the playbook.
See parallels in Pi coin survival games, where supply battles rage. Community spots the issue: fix tokenomics first.
Shifting to growth spends—rewards, expansions—builds moats. Buybacks become bonuses, not bandaids.
Broader Ecosystem Pressures
Solana’s insider unlocks and high emissions create headwinds no buyback survives alone. Jupiter and Helium highlight the need for holistic designs.
Projects must balance price defense with expansion. As crypto markets dip, weak tokenomics amplify pain. Sustainable models prioritize users over charts.
What’s Next for Jupiter and Buyback Strategies
Jupiter faces a crossroads: cling to failed buybacks or embrace Yakovenko’s vision of staked treasuries and growth incentives. With unlocks looming, indecision risks further erosion. Siong’s pivot signals intent, but execution will define outcomes.
The industry takeaway is clear: conventional buybacks are relics in emission-heavy chains. Innovate with staking, deferred repurchases, and utility focus to weather supply storms. Helium’s subscriber bet and Solana’s playbook offer blueprints.
For traders and builders, watch JUP’s moves closely—they could reshape DeFi token design amid 2026’s volatility. Real alignment beats hype every time.
