Recently, the Jupiter token buyback topic has sparked quite a bit of controversy. Let me share my personal opinion.

I believe that application tokens must have buyback or dividend mechanisms. This is not a market-making gamble issue, but a fundamental requirement of token economics. It’s 2026 now, and if a certain application token lacks such mechanisms to link token value with protocol revenue, then it’s purely speculation and meme coins.

However, Jupiter’s situation is indeed a bit awkward—its opening market cap was too high, and after such a long period of buybacks at high levels, the Solana ecosystem has fallen into a downturn, naturally leading to criticism that the buyback has been ineffective. In contrast, the Hyperliquid ecosystem might feel different; their buybacks seem more significant.

But there’s an important detail: buyback is not as good as direct burn. Why? Because tokens bought back are prone to “left hand to right hand” transfers—just after buying, they can be dumped. From this perspective, Jupiter’s long-term investment value is indeed questionable. There may be short-term benefits, but for the long term, it’s better to stay cautious.