The cryptocurrency world is abuzz with discussions about the failure of Jupiter’s ambitious $70 million buyback strategy to stabilize its JUP token. Despite the substantial commitment, the project faced a staggering 89% drop in token value, highlighting the challenges buybacks face in markets with high unlock pressures and structural selling. Let’s dive into why this strategy faltered and what industry leaders suggest as a path forward.
The $70 Million Buyback That Didn’t Deliver
In 2025, Jupiter Exchange launched a massive $70 million buyback program for its JUP token. The aim? To counteract the downward pressure of $1.2 billion in upcoming token unlocks. However, the results were far from satisfactory—JUP plummeted 89% from its peak, putting a spotlight on the limitations of conventional buyback strategies.
Founder Siong recently sparked a debate on social media, proposing a shift in focus. He asked whether the buyback funds would be better redirected toward growth incentives for current and new users. “We spent more than $70 million on buybacks last year, and the price obviously didn’t move much,” Siong shared. “Should we instead invest this into ecosystem growth?” This question ignited mixed reactions among the community, with some preferring growth initiatives over defensive buybacks.
Challenges of Buybacks in High-Unlock Environments
The failure of Jupiter’s buyback strategy reveals the challenges of operating in an environment with significant unlock pressure. With 53 million JUP tokens unlocking monthly through June 2026, the token’s circulating supply has already expanded by 150% since launch. Add to this the structural selling pressure from frequent unlocks, and it’s clear why the $70 million buyback barely made a dent.
Solana co-founder Anatoly Yakovenko offered an alternative. He suggested focusing on staking-based capital formation rather than short-term buybacks. “Instead of immediate buybacks, stash the funds as claimable future assets,” he advised. This model aligns token prices during unlocks with their future value after buybacks, encouraging users to lock their tokens for staking rewards and reducing immediate market pressure.
Lessons from Other Ecosystems
Jupiter isn’t alone in its struggles. The Helium network recently suspended its HNT repurchase program after the market responded tepidly. Instead, Helium redirected funds into user growth initiatives, such as expanding Helium Mobile subscribers and network hotspots. This strategy underscores a growing consensus: Buybacks may not be the panacea for tokens facing high emissions and unlock pressures.
Critics argue that in ecosystems where tokens serve as utility vouchers rather than equity, buybacks often produce only short-term effects. In such cases, staking rewards or long-term growth incentives may better align with ecosystem sustainability.
What’s Next for Jupiter?
The debate around the efficacy of buybacks continues, but one thing remains clear: Jupiter needs to balance short-term market stabilization with long-term growth. Yakovenko’s staking-based rewards model may provide a viable path forward, emphasizing capital formation and extending the utility life of funds.
For enthusiasts and investors exploring staking, consider Ledger Nano X’s secure hardware wallets (Ledger) for easy token management. With its user-friendly interface and robust security protocols, it’s designed to support staking for various cryptocurrencies, including Solana and Jupiter’s JUP token.
By adopting innovative strategies and learning from other ecosystems, Jupiter has a chance to rebuild investor confidence and create a sustainable future for its token economy.
