159 Cryptocurrency Protocols Tested: Except for Hyperliquid, tokens with buyback mechanisms are all losing money

Null

Author: Connor King

Translation: Deep Tide TechFlow

Deep Tide Guide: This article tests 159 protocols’ 6 types of token value accumulation mechanisms and finds that revenue scale is more important than mechanism design—protocols with daily revenue over $500k have an average return of +8%, while the lowest tier drops -81%. More importantly, many mechanisms that seem to “win” immediately reverse once one or two top projects are removed, providing direct reference value for investors choosing tokens.

We mapped the 6 value accumulation mechanisms of 159 tokens and tested which mechanisms truly translate into token holder returns.

The narrative around token value accumulation in the crypto industry is mostly wrong.

Research Setup

Two weeks ago, we released the “2026 Investor Relations and Token Transparency” report. One finding: 38% of crypto protocols actively accumulate value, while 62% do not return any value to token holders.

This article is a supporting analysis. We obtained data on 159 protocols, classified each token by accumulation mechanism, and pulled 1-year price performance data from Artemis. The question is: which mechanisms actually translate into returns?

We identified 6 models: direct fee distribution, buyback and burn, buyback and hold, voting escrow (ve model), pure governance, and other/mixed models.

Here are our findings:

Active accumulation outperforms pure governance by 10 percentage points

The 49 protocols using direct fees, buyback and burn, buyback and hold, and ve models had an average return of -55% over the past year. The 48 pure governance protocols averaged -65%.

When focusing on revenue-generating pure governance tokens like Uniswap, Arbitrum, and Morpho, the gap widens further. These protocols generate real income but do not share any with token holders. Opportunity cost is the most prominent aspect in the dataset.

Pure governance is akin to a corporate investor relations strategy that neither pays dividends nor repurchases stock. Ultimately, allocators stop pretending this is ongoing business and start pricing it as management’s wake-up call options.

Hyperliquid is in the buyback and burn category

From surface data, buyback and burn outperformed this year (+35% average), with buy-and-hold second (-52%). It looks like a clear victory for burning.

But removing Hyperliquid reverses the story. Excluding HYPE, buyback and burn average drops to -56%, buy-and-hold to -52%. One token defines the entire category.

Meteora is the cleanest buy-and-hold case. $10 million buyback plan, Novora investor relations score 95/100, transparent treasury accumulation. It fell about 40% this year, below the median of its peers. Holding tokens in a transparent treasury buyback retains options, creating visible, audited circulating supply. Burn destroys options, trading them for a marketing headline.

Revenue scale is the real signal

Sorting 50 protocols with clear Artemis revenue data by daily income reveals a pattern clearer than any mechanism classification.

The top quintile by income has an average return of +8%. the bottom quintile averages -81%.

Two protocols with daily revenue over $500k are Hyperliquid and Polymarket. Both are standout performers in the dataset. Their accumulation models differ, but their revenue trajectories are similar.

dYdX Paradox vs Hyperliquid Paradox

Direct fee distribution is the most straightforward model for institutional allocators because it maps clearly to dividends. dYdX runs a textbook version: 100% of trading fees to stakers, 75% net income buyback, best investor relations infrastructure.

dYdX fell 82% over the past 12 months. The mechanism operated exactly as promised, but the business did not.

Hyperliquid is the opposite. Through an aid fund buyback and burn (99% of fees), with zero traditional investor relations infrastructure, it achieved +193% annually.

If you are an allocator, this is the clearest interpretation in the dataset: you buy a share of the protocol’s income, and if income declines, the token will also fall. The mechanism is a basic requirement; revenue trajectory is everything.

ve Model requires perpetual bribery to operate

Aerodrome is the only ve model token in the dataset with positive 1-year return (+5%). This mechanism depends on inflows into the Base ecosystem to sustain the bribery market.

Velodrome, Curve, Balancer, and each smaller ve fork fell between -54% and -84%. The ve flywheel is effective, but it requires continuous new capital. When capital stops flowing in, the entire structure collapses.

This is not a critique of the model. It’s an acknowledgment that ve tokens are leveraged bets on ecosystem inflows, not necessarily on the protocol’s fundamentals.

Hybrid category averages -71%

Points programs, RWA, LRT, memecoin, stablecoins. 62 protocols. The most heterogeneous category in the dataset. Average 1-year return: -71%.

This is the fate of most projects launched in 2024-2025: EtherFi, Renzo, Puffer, Usual, Virtuals, AI16Z, the entire LRT queue, memecoin queue. These tokens rely on narratives and TGE airdrops, not cash flow mechanisms. Once airdrops unlock, there’s nothing left to support the price.

Investor readability is the core issue. Allocators cannot underwrite tokens whose accumulation mechanisms depend on future narratives.

The Big Picture

Average 1-year returns by accumulation model:

Buyback and burn: -35% (driven by Hyperliquid; excluding HYPE: -56%)

Buy-and-hold: -52%

Direct fee distribution: -55%

Pure governance: -65%

Voting escrow (ve model): -67%

Other/mixed: -71%

Out of 135 protocols with empirical performance data, 5 posted positive returns over the past year. Median return: -66%.

What does this mean?

The market will not pay a premium for good mechanism design but will punish tokens with no mechanism at all.

The clearest empirical interpretation for 2025 is: value accumulation has not generated excess returns; revenue has. But in the dataset, 48 pure governance protocols show the cost of having no mechanism. When the market chooses between tokens that pay and those that don’t, it opts for the paying ones.

For treasuries, the right question is not which mechanism can maximize upside. Data shows none can reliably do so. The right question is which mechanism makes the token look investable from an institutional fundamental perspective.

This immediately rules out pure governance and hybrid categories. It favors transparent treasury disclosures with buy-and-hold, scaled buyback and burn (Hyperliquid), mature revenue-generating protocols with direct fee distribution, and ve models that bind active bribery markets for narrow-range DEX native tokens.

For all other tokens, including most launched in the past 24 months, honest advice is: retrofit a mechanism before the next unlock. Do it while you still have a choice.

A full interactive report with all 159 protocols and filterable datasets is now live:

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. All data is verified from public sources as of April 2026. Novora may have consulting relationships with protocols mentioned in this report. Always conduct your own research and consult qualified financial advisors before making investment decisions.