Jupiter's $70 million dilemma: buyback or use to reward users?

Jupiter Co-founder SIONG recently raised a community concern directly related to project funding allocation: last year, over $70 million was spent on JUP buybacks, yet the token price showed no significant change. Should this money be redirected to reward existing and new users to promote ecosystem growth? Behind this question lies a deeper reflection—what kind of funding allocation is more beneficial for the project’s long-term development.

Cold Reflection on Buyback Efficiency

SIONG’s question is not unfounded. According to the latest data, JUP’s current price is $0.211462, with a market cap of $67.465 billion. As of 2025, Jupiter has become a top-tier DEX in the Solana ecosystem, with over $1 billion in fee revenue, ranking alongside Meteora and Uniswap as the highest-earning DeFi protocols globally.

What does this imply? The project itself generates real cash flow, yet the over $70 million spent on buybacks has not effectively supported the token price. This phenomenon is not uncommon in the crypto industry—many projects, despite strong fundamentals, see their token prices remain flat.

Comparing Two Funding Allocation Strategies

True Reflection of Project Fundamentals

It is worth noting that Jupiter has already experimented with user incentives. In the 2025 “Jupuary” event, the project airdropped 700 million JUP tokens directly to wallets of about 2 million users, rewarding genuine activity within the ecosystem. The logic is clear: instead of spending money on market buybacks, it’s better to directly distribute tokens to contributors and participants.

From an ecosystem perspective, Jupiter continues to innovate: launching Mobile V3 wallet, DTF fair financing platform, Portfolio asset management tools, and more. These are genuine value creations for users, not just technical maneuvers.

The Larger Underlying Issue

SIONG’s question touches on a fundamental contradiction in crypto projects: the dissonance between the value of tokens as governance and incentive tools versus their value as investment assets.

The project’s fee revenue exceeding $1 billion indicates that the service itself has value. But whether this value is effectively reflected in the JUP token depends on:

• The real use cases and reasons for holding the token
• Whether the benefits truly flow back to token holders
• Whether the project can sustain growth momentum

From this perspective, incentivizing user growth may be more strategically meaningful than simple market buybacks. Growth brings more usage, more transactions, and more real revenue—these are the true foundations of long-term token value.

Summary

This question from Jupiter’s co-founder reflects a rational thought process facing current realities. The $70 million buyback did not produce the expected effect, indicating that market valuation of the token depends not only on technical operations but also on genuine growth and user scale.

Shifting focus to user incentives and ecosystem expansion makes logical sense—it’s not about abandoning price support but about supporting it more effectively. The final decision rests with the community, but from a fundamental perspective, this shift in thinking is worth looking forward to. The key lies in how to execute it and whether this funding can truly translate into sustainable ecosystem growth.