Ansem says token buybacks cannot fix weak crypto valuations

Crypto trader Ansem has questioned whether token buybacks can create lasting value on their own, pointing to the wide valuation gap between Hyperliquid’s $HYPE and Pump.fun’s $PUMP.

In a July 17 X post, he argued that both businesses generate large revenues and regularly repurchase their tokens, yet the market values them very differently.

According to Ansem’s figures, Hyperliquid generates about $800 million in annualized revenue and carries a fully diluted valuation near $65 billion. Pump.fun, by comparison, generates roughly $440 million in annualized revenue while $PUMP trades at an FDV of about $1.4 billion. He said the contrast challenges the view that recurring buybacks alone determine crypto valuations.

“I have a thesis that buybacks don’t actually work,” Ansem wrote.

His broader argument was that market confidence, community alignment and a project’s record of delivering on 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 built strong confidence among core users. He said the team focused on shipping products without overpromising and rewarded users according to measurable activity. In his view, that approach strengthened trust and helped $HYPE command a higher valuation relative to revenue.

Hyperliquid also operates one of crypto’s largest token repurchase programs. As previously reported by crypto.news, its Assistance Fund directs most protocol fees toward continuous open-market $HYPE purchases. By May 2026, the mechanism had spent more than $1.3 billion on buybacks.

Pump.fun has also committed substantial resources to supporting $PUMP. However, its token has struggled despite aggressive repurchases and burns. As crypto.news reported ahead of the July vesting event, the platform had spent $233 million buying back 62.2 billion $PUMP by early January and later carried out a large token burn.

Meanwhile, Pump.fun distributed 57.279 billion $PUMP worth about $86.49 million to 121 team and investor wallets on July 15, beginning a three-year vesting cycle after a one-year lockup. The transfers made the tokens available to move but did not confirm that recipients sold them.

Ansem argued that 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. Pump.fun co-founder Alon Cohen said in July 2025 that an airdrop remained planned but would not arrive in the immediate future.

Therefore, Ansem said Pump.fun could potentially close part of its valuation gap by improving communication and delivering the distribution expected by users. That remains his market thesis rather than a guarantee of future price performance. He estimated that stronger community alignment could raise $PUMP’s valuation and activity.

He also cited Bitcoin as an example of what he views as an extreme trust premium. Bitcoin produces no business revenue, yet its fixed 21 million supply and established network rules support a far larger valuation.