The recent debate surrounding Jup's proposed token buyback program has sparked considerable discussion about its usefulness. Here's my perspective: Buybacks are essential. This has nothing to do with market-making or project team calculations; it's the fundamental basis of an application token. It's 2026 already. If an application token doesn't have a buyback/dividend mechanism to link the token to protocol revenue, I'm not buying it. Wouldn't it be better to speculate on something like Meme instead?

The key is the purpose of the repurchase agreement. From the perspective of currency as money, "repurchase" is essentially a simple form of central bank monetary policy. No central bank engages in repurchases unilaterally; they all use a basket of monetary tools.

But app tokens aren't currency! 😂 If they were currency, why would I buy worthless app tokens? Just like with currency, I'd buy US dollars, not Venezuelan pesos. If app tokens are detached from business operations and growth, this asset class has no investment value. Of course, what percentage will ultimately be used for buybacks and what percentage will be used for user growth is open to discussion.

App currency is actually the most currency-like. For example, the Australian dollar, Thai baht, and Malaysian ringgit are all strongly correlated with a specific commodity (utility). Unlike Level 1, which has a narrative advantage, app currency is essentially the commodity currency of the app itself.

My understanding of application tokens like Pump Uni, Aave, Hype Jup is that I don't need to hold their tokens when using their services, unlike importing goods from Australia, Thailand, or Malaysia, where I need to use their currencies. Therefore, people buying Pump Uni, Aave, Hype Jup have only one purpose: to see the token price appreciate in the future. If project teams can act like central banks and control prices, why would anyone buy them? 😅

Yes, BNB's fee reduction logic is basically a necessity for long-term traders. Hype has L1 gas logic, and JUP almost perfectly fits the bill. As for Uni and Pump, they truly lack this functionality. Central banks can indeed play a role. For small economies, such as countries with hundreds of thousands or millions of people, their central banks are often more professional than a project's MM (Market Maker) team.

Yes, BNB's fee reduction logic is basically a necessity for long-term traders. Hype has L1 gas logic, and JUP almost perfectly fits the bill. As for Uni and Pump, they truly lack this functionality. Central banks can indeed play a role. For small economies, such as countries with hundreds of thousands or millions of people, their central banks are often more professional than a project's MM (Market Maker) team.

I understand what you mean. I think these are some perks of current application tokens, or even legacy issues. In the past few years, application tokens mainly focused on this direction. In recent years, with the relaxation of security definitions for tokens in the US, application tokens have been developing towards stock-like structures. I think this trend will become more and more obvious in the future, and everyone will ultimately compete on profits and growth.

Basically, JUP would have fallen even more if it hadn't repurchased. Repurchasing at least prevented a drastic drop, and for some projects where people want to sell, it provides some exit liquidity, but only a little. In the long run, Hype's repurchase model will be terrifying. Right now, the experts are only bearish on it because of its 24-point price. Once it reaches 240, things will be different, or they'll just stay silent.