Revenue and buybacks are one of the biggest token narratives of the next cycle. We've already seen the attention Hyperliquid, Pump. fun, and other protocols have attracted by…
Original source excerpt
Revenue and buybacks are one of the biggest token narratives of the next cycle. We've already seen the attention Hyperliquid, Pump. fun, and other protocols have attracted by connecting actual busine…
Revenue and buybacks are one of the biggest token narratives of the next cycle. We've already seen the attention Hyperliquid, Pump. fun, and other protocols have attracted by connecting actual business revenue to their tokens. If a protocol is generating millions in fees, why shouldn't some of that value flow back to its tokenholders instead of relying on endless emissions? I expect more projects to move in this direction. One example is @katana, which is making some pretty significant changes to how $KAT works. The biggest one is a shift toward revenue-funded buybacks. • Katana has acquired three pieces of its DeFi infrastructure: • Katana Swap (Sushi deployment) for spot trading • Katana Perps (IDEX) for leveraged trading • Vault Bridge for earning yield on bridged assets Add sequencer fees, and that's four revenue streams feeding into the ecosystem. Those fees help fund automatic $KAT buybacks, and 100% of the bought-back tokens go to avKAT stakers The old voting and locking system is also being phased out. You simply stake $KAT, rewards compound automatically, and the unstaking cooldown drops from 45 days to 7. Of course, buybacks alone don't make a token a good investment. The real question is how much revenue these products can generate and how consistently that translates into buybacks. But I do think the direction is worth watching. The next cycle might put more weight on what protocols actually earn, and how much of it reaches tokenholders.
AI context is not available for this statement. The original source can be read independently.