The network has already begun translating Intents activity into demand for its native token. Since February, users have paid more than $29 million in fees, resulting in $5.3 million in $NEAR buybacks, according to Rasmussen.
However, he acknowledged that current repurchases are not sufficient to offset new token issuance.
“Today, buybacks aren’t enough to offset new issuance. But it’s still early,” Rasmussen said.
He expects growing Intents activity to increase repurchases over time, potentially making them a more significant factor in $NEAR’s token economics.
The comments build on recent remarks from Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan and Sovereign CEO Sal Ternullo, who said $NEAR was entering a new phase of token value accrual as its Intents business expands.
Rasmussen also sees potential in $NEAR AI Cloud, although its revenue has not yet developed the same direct buyback mechanism as Intents.
Still, he identified competition as a major risk. $NEAR’s established business operates in a market where competitors can offer lower trading fees, while its AI infrastructure has yet to prove it can capture meaningful market share.
Hyperliquid’s buybacks attract traditional investors
For Hyperliquid, Rasmussen said its revenue model is already resonating with financial advisors looking for familiar ways to evaluate crypto investments.
“We cannot see who holds $HYPE ETF shares, but the feature that lands fastest with advisors is that 99% of Hyperliquid trading fees buy back the $HYPE token,” he said.
According to Rasmussen, the mechanism allows investors to assess Hyperliquid using concepts traditionally associated with equities, including revenue generation and share repurchases.
“Traditional investors are very familiar with companies that build products that generate revenues and use the profits to buyback shares, or in the case of Hyperliquid, $HYPE tokens,” he said.
The comparison is especially relevant as Bitwise and other issuers offer investment products tied to $HYPE, providing exposure through traditional brokerage and retirement accounts.
Rasmussen said Hyperliquid generates nearly $1 billion in revenue and leads the decentralized perpetual futures market. However, he cautioned that investors must weigh its growth against competition from centralized exchanges, including Coinbase, Binance, and CME, alongside regulatory risks.
ETFs and treasury companies add another source of token demand
Beyond network activity, Rasmussen identified ETFs and digital asset treasury companies as additional forces shaping demand for $NEAR and $HYPE.
Digital asset treasury companies such as Sovereign and Hyperliquid Strategies accumulate $NEAR and $HYPE, respectively, supporting their ecosystems through token purchases and capital deployment into decentralized finance.
However, Rasmussen distinguished those purchases from demand generated by actual network usage.
“Usage demand shows up every month as fees and buybacks, while treasury purchases (or flows into ETFs) show up as increasing demand for the token,” he said.
He also warned that treasury purchases are sensitive to market conditions. Falling equity valuations or shrinking premiums to net asset value could force companies to slow their accumulation.
Rasmussen said treasury companies could become both buyers and sellers of their underlying tokens, depending on market conditions.
Unlike ETFs, treasury companies also introduce management expenses and execution risks. Their shares can trade at significant premiums or discounts to the value of their crypto holdings.
Looking ahead, Rasmussen said execution and regulatory developments would be central to both investment cases.
“I believe investors underappreciate the impact that rising institutional and enterprise adoption will have on the growth of these networks and outlook for these assets,” he said.
