Cryptocurrency trader Ansem questioned whether token buybacks could create lasting value on their own, pointing to the wide valuation gap between Hyperliquid’s HYPE and Pump.fun’s PUMP.
summary
- Frequent token buybacks cannot overcome weak community trust or poor user compatibility, Ansem says.
- HYPE trades at a much richer valuation than PUMP despite both platforms using profit-funded buybacks.
- Pump.fun’s airtime lag remains central to Ansem’s view that PUMP lacks the trust premium of Hyperliquid.
In a July 17Both companies generate significant revenue and regularly buy back their tokens, yet the market values them very differently, he said.
According to Ansem’s numbers, Hyperliquid generates about $800 million in annual revenue and carries a fully diluted valuation of close to $65 billion. In comparison, Pump.fun generates approximately $440 million in annual revenue while PUMP trades at an FDV of approximately $1.4 billion. He said the discrepancy challenges the view that frequent buybacks alone determine cryptocurrency valuations.
“I have a hypothesis that buybacks don’t actually work,” Ansem wrote.
His broader argument was that market confidence, community alignment, and a project’s track record of meeting commitments can create an additional “trust premium” that financial metrics cannot fully measure.
Hyperliquid and Pump.fun show different results from buybacks
Ansem pointed to Hyperliquid as a platform that is building strong trust among core users. He said the team focused on shipping products without overpromising and rewarding users based on measurable activity. In his view, this approach has built confidence and helped HYPE obtain a higher valuation relative to revenues.
Hyperliquid also operates one of the largest cryptocurrency buyback programs. Ditto I mentioned By crypto.news, its aid fund directs most of the protocol’s fees toward ongoing purchases on the open market. By May 2026, the mechanism had spent more than $1.3 billion on buybacks.
Pump.fun has also dedicated significant resources to supporting PUMP. However, its token has struggled despite strong buybacks and burns. As crypto.news reported before the July entitlement event, it happened on the platform It spent $233 million to buy back 62.2 billion pumps By early January thereafter a large symbolic burning took place.
Meanwhile, Pump.fun has distributed 57.279 billion pumps Valued at approximately $86.49 million to the team’s 121 portfolios and investors on July 15, beginning a three-year vesting cycle after a one-year lock-up. Transfers made tokens available for transfer but did not confirm that recipients sold them.
Ansem said the missing factor is community trust. He pointed to Pump.fun’s previously discussed user airdrop, which has not yet been delivered, as a source of weaker alignment with its core audience. Alon Cohen, co-founder of Pump.fun, said in July 2025 that the airdrop was still planned but would not arrive in the near future.
Therefore, Ansem said that Pump.fun can fill part of the evaluation gap by improving connectivity and delivering the distribution expected by users. This remains his market thesis, and is not a guarantee of future price performance. He estimated that stronger community consensus could raise PUMP’s evaluation and activity.
He also cited Bitcoin as an example of what he sees as an extreme trust premium. Bitcoin generates no trading revenue, yet its 21 million fixed supply and well-established network rules support a much larger valuation.
