MarketsSolana
|4 min ReadSolana Founders Are Rage Quitting Buybacks After $70 Million Failure
Carter Hayes
Senior Analyst
Published
Jan 16, 2026
For the last two years, the crypto industry has operated on a simple, unquestioned assumption: if a protocol makes money, it should use that money to buy back its own token. It was the "holy grail" of tokenomics, designed to mimic stock buybacks and return value to holders.
The $70 Million Bonfire
The first crack in the dam appeared when Siong Ong, co-founder of the Solana decentralized exchange Jupiter, dropped a bombshell on his community. Over the past year, the protocol had spent a staggering $70 million—representing 50% of its total fee revenue—buying back the JUP token.
The result? Catastrophe. JUP is trading down nearly 90% from its highs, languishing at $0.20 compared to its $2.00 peak. To make matters worse, the protocol faces a massive cliff on January 31, when 700 million JUP (worth ~$147 million) will unlock. Ong is now openly asking his community if they should stop the program entirely, admitting that the market simply absorbed the buybacks as exit liquidity.
Helium Throws in the Towel
Days later, Helium founder Amir Haleem turned that doubt into action. Despite his network generating a healthy $3.4 million per month in revenue from mobile plan subscribers, the HNT token had bled from $4.57 to $1.30.
Haleem’s conclusion was brutal but rational: "The market doesn't care." The project had been spending roughly $680,000 a month on buybacks, a sum that proved totally ineffective against the broader market tide. Haleem announced he is "stopping the waste of capital" immediately. Instead of propping up the token price, Helium will now deploy 100% of its war chest into user acquisition and network expansion—betting that fundamental growth is the only thing that actually matters.
The Intellectual Civil War
The simultaneous failure of these programs has sparked a fierce debate among crypto's elite about capital allocation.
On one side stands Solana founder Anatoly Yakovenko, who argues that buybacks are short-sighted financial engineering. He believes protocols should focus on building a balance sheet or using staking mechanisms to reward long-term believers, rather than providing exit liquidity for short-term speculators.
But Brian Smith, COO of Jito, offers a counter-narrative: DAOs are notoriously bad at investing. If a protocol cannot find high-ROI growth opportunities, returning capital to holders via buybacks is the only responsible move. He argues that without the buybacks, the price carnage for JUP and HNT might have been even worse.
The Smart Money Verdict
Perhaps the most nuanced take comes from Jordi Alexander of Selini Capital, who argues that the mechanism isn't the problem—the execution is. Projects like Jupiter were buying back tokens at inflated valuations, effectively overpaying for their own stock.
Alexander proposes a "Dynamic Buyback" model inspired by traditional finance: be aggressive when the token is undervalued (e.g., a P/E ratio below 4), and stop completely when the market is overheated.
The lesson entering 2026 is clear: The era of "blind buybacks" is over. Founders are realizing that a token's price is a reflection of its future growth, not just its current cash flow. If you stop growing to pay for buybacks, you end up with neither.
Disclaimer: This document is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The views expressed in this document are not, and should not be taken as, investment advice or recommendations. Recipients should do their own due diligence, taking into account their specific financial circumstances, investment objectives and risk tolerance, which are not considered here, before investing. This document is not an offer, or the solicitation of an offer, to buy or sell any of the assets mentioned.