The post Hyperliquid’s Buyback Crosses $521.85M, Founder Rebuts Claims on Protocol Priorities appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. @HyperliquidX has officially accumulated $521.85 million in value through its buyback mechanism since launch. Data shared on X reveals the protocol has repurchased 15.26 million $HYPE tokens through collected fees, offsetting 5.64% of circulating supply. The buybacks have run consistently from March through October 2025, showing sustained accumulation and strong fee performance. . @HyperliquidX ‘s buyback mechanism has accumulated $521.85M in value since launch. Key metrics: • 15.26M $HYPE repurchased via protocol fees• 5.64% of circulating supply offset• Steady accumulation from March-October 2025 The chart shows consistent buyback activity.… pic.twitter.com/UVYZAIocUB — Tokenomist (@Tokenomist_ai) October 18, 2025 Steady Buybacks Reflect Active Market Demand Hyperliquid’s buyback system works directly from protocol-generated fees, automatically purchasing $HYPE from the market and adding deflationary pressure. The accumulated $521.85M represents months of consistent performance. According to data shared by Tokenomist, the chart shows steady upward momentum, a signal of both platform usage and organic demand. Since March, buybacks have accelerated in tandem with trading volume and fee income. Analysts note this mechanism has helped stabilize $HYPE price volatility while reinforcing Hyperliquid’s long-term value framework. The 5.64% offset of circulating supply is a strong indicator that Hyperliquid’s fee model is not just revenue-driven but actively redistributive to holders. FUD Around Protocol Revenue Prioritization As buyback metrics spread, discussions emerged online suggesting Hyperliquid might prioritize protocol revenue over trader benefits. Hyperliquid founder Jeff, known as @chameleon_jeff, directly addressed these claims, calling them FUD and offering a transparent breakdown of recent events. Debunking the FUD that Hyperliquid prioritizes protocol revenue over traders On 10/10, Hyperliquid ADLs net made users hundreds of millions of dollars by closing profitable short positions at favorable prices. If more positions had been backstop liquidated, HLP could have made… — jeff.hl (@chameleon_jeff) October 18, 2025 He cited the October 10 ADL (Auto-Deleveraging) event as an… The post Hyperliquid’s Buyback Crosses $521.85M, Founder Rebuts Claims on Protocol Priorities appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. @HyperliquidX has officially accumulated $521.85 million in value through its buyback mechanism since launch. Data shared on X reveals the protocol has repurchased 15.26 million $HYPE tokens through collected fees, offsetting 5.64% of circulating supply. The buybacks have run consistently from March through October 2025, showing sustained accumulation and strong fee performance. . @HyperliquidX ‘s buyback mechanism has accumulated $521.85M in value since launch. Key metrics: • 15.26M $HYPE repurchased via protocol fees• 5.64% of circulating supply offset• Steady accumulation from March-October 2025 The chart shows consistent buyback activity.… pic.twitter.com/UVYZAIocUB — Tokenomist (@Tokenomist_ai) October 18, 2025 Steady Buybacks Reflect Active Market Demand Hyperliquid’s buyback system works directly from protocol-generated fees, automatically purchasing $HYPE from the market and adding deflationary pressure. The accumulated $521.85M represents months of consistent performance. According to data shared by Tokenomist, the chart shows steady upward momentum, a signal of both platform usage and organic demand. Since March, buybacks have accelerated in tandem with trading volume and fee income. Analysts note this mechanism has helped stabilize $HYPE price volatility while reinforcing Hyperliquid’s long-term value framework. The 5.64% offset of circulating supply is a strong indicator that Hyperliquid’s fee model is not just revenue-driven but actively redistributive to holders. FUD Around Protocol Revenue Prioritization As buyback metrics spread, discussions emerged online suggesting Hyperliquid might prioritize protocol revenue over trader benefits. Hyperliquid founder Jeff, known as @chameleon_jeff, directly addressed these claims, calling them FUD and offering a transparent breakdown of recent events. Debunking the FUD that Hyperliquid prioritizes protocol revenue over traders On 10/10, Hyperliquid ADLs net made users hundreds of millions of dollars by closing profitable short positions at favorable prices. If more positions had been backstop liquidated, HLP could have made… — jeff.hl (@chameleon_jeff) October 18, 2025 He cited the October 10 ADL (Auto-Deleveraging) event as an…

Hyperliquid’s Buyback Crosses $521.85M, Founder Rebuts Claims on Protocol Priorities

2025/10/21 00:47

@HyperliquidX has officially accumulated $521.85 million in value through its buyback mechanism since launch.

Data shared on X reveals the protocol has repurchased 15.26 million $HYPE tokens through collected fees, offsetting 5.64% of circulating supply.

The buybacks have run consistently from March through October 2025, showing sustained accumulation and strong fee performance.

Steady Buybacks Reflect Active Market Demand

Hyperliquid’s buyback system works directly from protocol-generated fees, automatically purchasing $HYPE from the market and adding deflationary pressure.

The accumulated $521.85M represents months of consistent performance. According to data shared by Tokenomist, the chart shows steady upward momentum, a signal of both platform usage and organic demand.

Since March, buybacks have accelerated in tandem with trading volume and fee income. Analysts note this mechanism has helped stabilize $HYPE price volatility while reinforcing Hyperliquid’s long-term value framework.

The 5.64% offset of circulating supply is a strong indicator that Hyperliquid’s fee model is not just revenue-driven but actively redistributive to holders.

FUD Around Protocol Revenue Prioritization

As buyback metrics spread, discussions emerged online suggesting Hyperliquid might prioritize protocol revenue over trader benefits.

Hyperliquid founder Jeff, known as @chameleon_jeff, directly addressed these claims, calling them FUD and offering a transparent breakdown of recent events.

He cited the October 10 ADL (Auto-Deleveraging) event as an example of how the system works in favor of traders, not against them.

According to him, had the platform used backstop liquidation instead, Hyperliquid’s liquidity providers (HLP) could have earned “hundreds of millions more” in unrealized PnL. But the team deliberately avoided that, reducing exposure risk and prioritizing user profits.

How Hyperliquid’s ADL Works

The Auto-Deleveraging mechanism is a critical risk management component used across derivatives platforms.

Hyperliquid’s ADL queue determines which positions are closed first during liquidation events, using a formula based on leverage used and unrealized profit and loss (PnL).

This design ensures traders with higher risk exposure and higher unrealized profits are first in line for position closure, mirroring how most centralized exchanges operate.

Jeff clarified that the formula’s simplicity is deliberate, it prioritizes reliability and transparency over complexity.

Balancing Profitability and Risk

Jeff’s defense of Hyperliquid’s model highlights an ongoing tension in DeFi, balancing protocol sustainability with user fairness.

While some critics argue that buyback systems and fee accruals can lean toward maximizing protocol gains, Hyperliquid’s ADL framework shows the opposite.

By limiting exposure and allowing users to retain profits during the October event, Hyperliquid effectively sacrificed internal gains to maintain system health.

That approach, Jeff argues, keeps the platform aligned with trader outcomes and mitigates liquidation cascades that could destabilize markets.

Community Feedback and Ongoing Research

Despite the defense, community discussions remain active. Some users have proposed more complex ADL logic, such as partially offsetting long and short positions across correlated assets to reduce forced closures.

Jeff acknowledged the feedback but cautioned against overengineering.

Still, he confirmed that research is ongoing to assess whether any substantial improvements would justify the added complexity.

This openness reflects a maturing phase for Hyperliquid, which continues to emphasize user-centric iteration rather than opaque back-end adjustments.

Buyback Mechanism as a Strength Signal

The success of the buyback program has become a central narrative in Hyperliquid’s growth story.

Accumulating over half a billion dollars in buyback value in less than a year places Hyperliquid among the strongest derivatives protocols by internal liquidity generation.

Repurchasing 15.26 million $HYPE since inception has provided measurable support for the token’s market structure, reducing supply while increasing perceived value among holders.

Even without direct token burns, the consistent buyback inflow acts as a soft deflationary force, incentivizing longer-term holding and reinforcing token utility within the ecosystem.

Market analysts view the buyback as a proxy for platform health, as protocol fees reflect real trading volume, the buyback ratio mirrors user activity in real time.

From Controversy to Clarity

Hyperliquid’s communication following the ADL event was key in quelling the FUD.

By breaking down the internal decisions and exposing the trade-offs between profit-taking and risk reduction, Jeff reframed the debate.

What initially appeared as a protocol favoring revenue was, in fact, an example of responsible risk control that prioritized users’ realized gains.

This transparency has helped stabilize sentiment across the community and reinforced Hyperliquid’s reputation as one of the few derivatives protocols openly publishing both buyback data and internal explanations behind key decisions.

Broader Takeaways for DeFi Protocols

Hyperliquid’s handling of the October 10 ADL event, and the subsequent $521.85M buyback milestone, offers a few broader lessons for the space:

1. Transparency builds trust. Sharing details of liquidation logic and PnL distribution helps counter misinformation.

2. Simplicity scales better. Complex liquidation systems risk introducing errors and confusing users.

3. Sustainable incentives matter. A buyback tied to real protocol fees reflects genuine economic performance.

4. Trader-first risk models attract loyalty. Prioritizing user outcomes, even at protocol cost, strengthens long-term ecosystem credibility.

From March to October 2025, Hyperliquid has demonstrated measured growth, transparent operations, and strong market discipline.

The $521.85M buyback isn’t just a milestone, it’s proof of a functioning model that rewards real usage over speculative hype.

Founder Jeff’s insistence on maintaining a simple yet transparent ADL system underscores Hyperliquid’s focus on reliability and trader trust.

As DeFi derivatives continue to evolve, Hyperliquid’s balance between protocol profitability and user protection could set a new standard for how decentralized exchanges manage growth under scrutiny.

Disclosure: This is not trading or investment advice. Always do your research before buying any cryptocurrency or investing in any services.

Follow us on Twitter @nulltxnews to stay updated with the latest Crypto, NFT, AI, Cybersecurity, Distributed Computing, and Metaverse news!

Source: https://nulltx.com/hyperliquids-buyback-crosses-521-85m-founder-rebuts-claims-on-protocol-priorities/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Core developers blasted the Ethereum Foundation: In the face of huge wealth, you have long abandoned ideals and principles

Core developers blasted the Ethereum Foundation: In the face of huge wealth, you have long abandoned ideals and principles

By Péter Szilágyi Compiled by GaryMa Wu on Blockchain Original link: https://gist.github.com/karalabe/a2bc53436f29e0711fe680d59e180f6c background Péter Szilágyi, a former Ethereum core developer and Geth maintainer, recently publicly disclosed a letter he sent to the leadership of the Ethereum Foundation (EF) a year and a half ago. In the letter, he frankly expressed his disappointment with the Ethereum Foundation and pointed out serious problems within the foundation, such as unfair salaries, conflicts of interest, and concentration of power. Péter Szilagyi, who has worked at the Ethereum Foundation since 2016, reportedly was fired in November after discovering a "secret second Geth team." He announced a leave of absence, but in reality, it was a one-on-one conversation with Josh Stark regarding the team. Within 24 hours, he was fired by the Foundation, citing "unacceptable threats of resignation and damage to team morale." This "secret" team may refer to the Geth rollup publicly announced in October, though never released through work channels. Furthermore, funding issues have surfaced, with Ethereum Foundation Co-Executive Director Tomasz K. Stańczak threatening to significantly reduce the salaries of Geth developers. Szilagyi also mentioned that the Foundation had repeatedly attempted to spin off Geth into a private entity, but Stańczak denied such plans. Szilagyi's previous outbursts over workload and salary issues have tested the patience of some investors. The Geth client suffers from issues such as an inability to flexibly prune storage like Bitcoin and Ethereum's L2 clients, a storage requirement of up to 700GB with no technical justification, and potential decentralization implications. Maintaining two clients also creates additional inefficiencies and complexity. The Foundation has repeatedly invited Szilagyi to return, but he declined, posing an apology as a condition. The following is a translation of the full letter: Hello everyone, Over the past few years, I've often felt insecure about Ethereum, my role on the Geth team, my role within the Ethereum Foundation (EF), and even my place in the Ethereum ecosystem as a whole. (No, I'm not resigning, at least not yet.) I've occasionally discussed various troubling issues with Felix, Martin, and occasionally Josh. These conversations always offer a moment of relief, but I always end up back where I started. I've even realized that I can't quite articulate what my real problem is (thanks to Felix for pointing that out). So, I decided to take some time to sort through my thoughts, and this post is essentially a summary of those reflections (or at least, I hope it will be one; I've only just begun writing it). Before I say anything negative about Ethereum or any particular person, I want to emphasize that I've always believed that Ethereum is a force for positive change in the world, and that the Foundation is a benign force behind that change (even though I've often criticized its decisions as naive). Working for Ethereum and the Foundation has been a privilege and a highlight of my career. I'm incredibly grateful for everything I've gained financially, personally, and professionally, and I'm constantly amazed at how people have tolerated me even when I've been embarrassing myself (sometimes publicly). For that, I'm deeply grateful. Please don't interpret any of the following criticisms as doomsaying about Ethereum's fate, but rather as my own personal reflections on why Ethereum failed for me. My main issue with Ethereum right now is the intense dissonance I perceive between my publicly stated role and how I'm actually treated behind the scenes. More often than not, the foundation portrays me as someone with a "leadership role" in the ecosystem; yet whenever public conflict arises, the foundation's stance is usually that "this is all planned" because Ethereum "values diverse perspectives." I challenge this narrative—Dankrad summed it up so elegantly in a private message: I simply hold a "perceived leadership role" (I envy his phrasing). I see myself as a "leader" simply because I've maintained Geth's public image for the past nine years; because I've held firm against some less-than-honest participants in the past; and because I've dared to publicly question those in power, sometimes even within the foundation itself. People love to see action, and what better way to demonstrate "impartiality" than when someone within the foundation publicly confronts the foundation? But personally, every such outburst erodes my social credit and the credibility of the Geth team. Every time I push back against a powerful figure, more and more voices come to their defense. For example, when I questioned Justin/Dankrad's conflict of interest, Giulio from Erigon immediately jumped to their defense, saying, "There's nothing wrong with accepting the highest bidder." Whatever the truth, I've long felt like a "useful idiot" in the eyes of the Foundation—a lose-lose situation for me. I could choose to remain silent and watch Geth and its values be trampled upon, allowing the big players to reshape the protocol at will. Or I could speak out, damaging my reputation every time I speak out because it would prevent certain individuals from profiting from Ethereum. Either way, the outcome would be the same: Geth (and therefore, myself) would eventually be removed from the game. Of course, I could also "turn the table" and exit—the same outcome, just faster. For better or worse, I believe the Foundation bears a significant responsibility: from promoting client diversity, to designing consensus penalty mechanisms, to getting influential researchers to promote new clients that "use dirty tricks but move in the right direction." Despite being one of the earliest teams in the ecosystem (besides Vitalik himself), I haven't felt much gratitude for sticking around. The sentiment is perfectly captured by the Twitter chatter: "Thanks for helping us build this empire, now let those who can make money take over." This is the first reason why I think Ethereum "failed" for me: we set out to build something great, but when enough money was on the table, we didn't hesitate to abandon our principles. This brings me to my second pain point in Ethereum: the conflict between workers and speculators. Working at the Ethereum Foundation has always been a poor financial decision. Since I initiated an "internal reform" two years ago, compensation for the Geth team has improved somewhat (for employees). But let's look at the numbers: in my first six years at Ethereum—from zero to $450 billion in market capitalization—my total compensation was $625,000 (pre-tax, total, six years, no incentives). This is a true reflection of what it's like to be a "worker" at the Ethereum Foundation. Geth's financial situation is better now, but I'm sure other positions within the Foundation (such as operations, administration, and even research) still make significantly less. This situation is a breeding ground for conflicts of interest and protocol capture. Almost all of the foundation's early employees have long since left, as that was the only way they could earn enough to justify their contributions. Those who remain are exploited by the foundation—they "do it for the sake of faith, not the money." In Vitalik's words, "If no one complains about being underpaid, then they're overpaid." I consider this one of the most significant failures of the foundation's leadership. The structure within the foundation, which deliberately keeps salary information secret, reinforces my belief that, even if it was initially an unintentional mistake, the foundation has become completely reliant on it. Why am I bringing this up now that Geth's financial situation has improved? Because the Foundation is effectively setting the stage for protocol capture. By systematically underpaying those who truly care about the protocol, the EF forces the most trusted individuals to seek compensation elsewhere. I believe Justin and Dankrad's recent advisory positions are blatant conflicts of interest and potential protocol capture, and they themselves are unreasonably downplaying the risks—yes, I do. But are they being paid unjustly? No. They are simply accepting the consequences of what the Foundation has sown. The genie is out of the bottle. The Foundation has deprived every employee of "life-changing wealth" over the past decade, and any attempt to remedy this situation is pointless. Blinded by their own bottomless reserves, and further detached from reality by Vitalik's personal wealth, the Foundation has never considered that the people who work for them deserve a similarly comfortable life. No one objects to founders receiving a share of their success, but the Foundation—under Vitalik's leadership—has gone to great lengths to avoid paying its employees fairly. This is the second reason why Ethereum "failed" for me: the Foundation put the protocol at risk of capture, not out of malice, but out of a kind of subtractive idealism—a naive belief, disconnected from reality, that people don't care about money. Next, let's talk about Ethereum's "high-level players." I have great respect for Vitalik, but he's become a victim of his own success. Whether he likes it or not, he has always—and still does—determine what succeeds and what doesn't in Ethereum. His focus, the research he guides, his donations and investments, virtually determine which projects succeed (with a very high probability). His opinions also directly define what is "allowed" and what is not in the ecosystem. In other words, the rule of survival in the gray area is to make Vitalik feel "okay." Ethereum may be decentralized, but Vitalik has absolute indirect control over it. This might not be a problem in itself, but over the past decade, the entire ecosystem has exploited this phenomenon. In the early days of the foundation, founders and early holders competed openly and covertly for power and influence. Later, meeting attendees realized that the key to success lay with Vitalik, and everyone worked to "encircle" him. Ultimately, this evolved into a small inner circle of "Ethereum thought leaders"—a group of five to ten individuals who invest in or serve as advisors to nearly every project. Today, success requires only the approval of these core figures (or Vitalik himself) (as Farcaster demonstrates). At this point, the problem isn't Vitalik himself; it's the formation of a "ruling elite" within Ethereum. New projects no longer raise funds publicly; instead, they directly approach the same five to ten familiar faces for investment or advisory positions. Everyone understands: if you can get Bankless to invest, they'll sing its praises on podcasts; if you can hire researchers as advisors, you'll not only solve technical problems but also mitigate the risk of friction with the Ethereum mainnet. The key to this gray area is getting those five people to agree. Look at every new project, and you'll see the same group of people fueling each other's momentum. Zoom in a little, and you'll see the same one to three venture capital firms behind it. This is the third reason why I consider Ethereum a "failure": We aspired to create a world where everyone is equal, but today's most successful projects are backed by the same 5-10 individuals, backed by the same venture capital firms. All power is concentrated in Vitalik's circle of friends. The direction of Ethereum ultimately depends on your relationship with Vitalik. It's simple: people are more tolerant of their friends than outsiders—so, to succeed, befriend the "kingmakers." I choose to remain distant because I find the idea of making friends for money disgusting; yet, it pains me deeply—because this is the reality of our "trustless little empire." As for where all this leads us, I honestly don't know. I don't think Ethereum is irreparable. I don't see any path to reversal. I feel the foundation's loyalties are already irrevocable. I feel Vitalik, despite his good intentions, has created a ruling class that will never relinquish power. You either go along with the crowd or get sidelined (at least they pay you well). As for Geth, I feel like we've been labeled a "problem" within the larger picture of Ethereum—and I'm right at the center of that problem—so I don't see any future for myself in continuing to fight this. Over the years, I've turned down many insanely high-paying offers simply to stay committed to Ethereum. This has always been the "right mindset" the Foundation has promoted. However, the entire Ethereum ecosystem has now unanimously decided, "This is just a business." I can't accept this mindset. I also question whether I can still stay in the ecosystem if I leave Ethereum or the Foundation. So, I'm currently caught between two difficult choices. Let's wait and see how the future unfolds. With the sincerest wishes, Peter
Share
2025/10/22 12:00
Share