159 crypto protocols tested: Besides Hyperliquid, tokens with buyback mechanisms are all losing money
- Core Insight: Revenue scale is the key determinant of token returns, rather than the value accrual mechanism itself; protocols with average daily revenue exceeding $500,000 deliver average returns superior to those without revenue, revealing that the market actually rewards business fundamentals over mechanism design.
- Key Factors:
- Active value accrual (49 protocols) tokens show a 1-year average return of -55%, pure governance tokens (48) stand at -65%, but the gap narrows after excluding top projects.
- The top quintile by daily revenue yields an average return of +8%, while the bottom quintile sits at -81%; revenue scale is more predictive than mechanism classification.
- The buyback and burn category records an average return of -35%, but drops to -56% after excluding Hyperliquid (+193%), demonstrating the significant influence of a single project on the data.
- The only ve-model token with a positive return, Aerodrome (+5%), relies on continued capital inflows from the Base ecosystem; other ve tokens posted declines ranging from -54% to -84%.
- The mixed category (including 62 tokens such as points programs, RWA, memecoins, etc.) posts an average return of -71%, with a lack of cash flow support leading to price collapses after airdrop unlocks.
- Among 135 protocols with available data, only 5 have posted positive returns over the past year, with a median return of -66%.
Original Author: Connor King
Original Translation: TechFlow
Introduction: This article tested 6 token value accrual mechanisms across 159 protocols and found that revenue scale matters more than mechanism design—protocols with daily revenues over $500,000 averaged +8% returns, while the lowest tier averaged -81%. More critically, many seemingly "winning" mechanisms reverse immediately when one or two top projects are removed, offering direct reference value for investors selecting tokens.
We mapped 6 value accrual mechanisms across 159 tokens and tested which ones actually translate into returns for token holders.
Most of the crypto industry's narratives around token value accrual are wrong.
Research Setup
Two weeks ago, we published the "2026 Investor Relations & Token Transparency" report. One finding: 38% of crypto protocols have active value accrual, while 62% return zero value to token holders.
This article is a companion analysis. We took a dataset of 159 protocols, classified each token by its accrual mechanism, and pulled 1-year price performance from Artemis. The question: which mechanisms actually translate into returns?
We identified 6 models: Direct Fee Distribution, Buyback & Burn, Buyback & Hold, Vote-Escrowed (ve model), Pure Governance, and Other/Hybrid.
Here's what we found:
Active Accrual Leads Pure Governance by 10 Percentage Points
The 49 protocols using Direct Fees, Buyback & Burn, Buyback & Hold, and ve models averaged -55% returns over the past year. The 48 Pure Governance protocols averaged -65%.
When narrowed to revenue-generating Pure Governance tokens like Uniswap, Arbitrum, and Morpho, the gap widens further. These protocols generate real revenue yet distribute nothing to token holders. The opportunity cost is the most glaring part of the dataset.
Pure Governance is the investor relations equivalent of a public company that neither pays dividends nor buys back stock. Eventually, allocators stop pretending it's a going concern and start pricing it as an option on management waking up.
Hyperliquid is the Buyback & Burn Category
On the surface, Buyback & Burn won this year (averaging -35%), with Buyback & Hold second (-52%). This looks like a decisive victory for burning.
But the story reverses when excluding Hyperliquid. Remove HYPE, and Buyback & Burn averages -56%, while Buyback & Hold averages -52%. A single token defines the entire category.
Meteora is the cleanest case of Buyback & Hold. A $10 million buyback program, Novora investor relations score of 95/100, transparent treasury accumulation. Down about 40% this year, below the category median. Holding repurchased tokens in a transparent treasury preserves optionality and creates visible, audited supply. Burning destroys optionality in exchange for a marketing headline.
Revenue Scale is the True Signal
Sorting the 50 protocols with clear Artemis revenue data by daily revenue reveals a pattern clearer than any mechanism classification.
Protocols in the top quintile by revenue averaged +8% returns. Those in the bottom quintile averaged -81%.
The two protocols with daily revenue exceeding $500,000 are Hyperliquid and Polymarket. Both are standout performers in the dataset. Their accrual models differ, but their revenue trajectories are the same.
The dYdX Paradox vs. The Hyperliquid Paradox
Direct Fee Distribution is the most legible model for institutional allocators because it clearly maps to dividends. dYdX runs the textbook version: 100% of trading fees to stakers, 75% of net revenue for buybacks, best-in-class investor relations infrastructure.
dYdX is down 82% over the past 12 months. The mechanism worked exactly as promised, but the business didn't.
Hyperliquid is the opposite. Buyback & Burn via the Assistance Fund (99% of fees), zero traditional investor relations infrastructure, +193% annually.
If you're an allocator, this is the clearest read from the dataset: you are buying a claim on protocol revenue. If revenue declines, the token will decline too. The mechanism is a baseline requirement; the revenue trajectory is everything.
The ve Model Needs Perpetual Bribes to Function
Aerodrome is the only ve model token in the dataset with a positive 1-year return (+5%). The mechanism depends on Base ecosystem inflows to sustain the bribe market.
Velodrome, Curve, Balancer, and every smaller ve-fork are down between -54% and -84%. The ve flywheel works, but the flywheel requires constant new capital. When capital inflows stop, the entire structure collapses.
This is not a criticism of the model. It's an acknowledgment that ve tokens are leveraged bets on ecosystem inflows, not necessarily bets on pure protocol fundamentals.
Hybrid Category Averages -71%
Points programs, RWAs, LRTs, memecoins, stablecoins. 62 protocols. The most heterogeneous category in the dataset. Average 1-year return: -71%.
This is the destination for most projects launched in 2024-2025: EtherFi, Renzo, Puffer, Usual, Virtuals, AI16Z, the entire LRT cohort, the memecoin cohort. These tokens trade on narratives and TGE airdrop events, not on cash flow mechanisms. Once the airdrop unlocks are complete, there's nothing left to support the price.
Investor legibility is the fundamental problem. Allocators cannot underwrite a token whose accrual mechanism depends on future narratives.
Panoramic View
Average 1-year returns by accrual model:
Buyback & Burn: -35% (boosted by Hyperliquid; -56% excluding HYPE)
Buyback & Hold: -52%
Direct Fee Distribution: -55%
Pure Governance: -65%
Vote-Escrowed (ve model): -67%
Other/Hybrid: -71%
Among the 135 protocols with empirical performance data, 5 were positive over the past year. Median return: -66%.
What This Means
The market does not pay a premium for good mechanism design, but it punishes tokens with no mechanism at all.
The clearest empirical takeaway for 2025 is: value accrual did not generate excess returns, revenue did. But the 48 Pure Governance protocols in the dataset demonstrate the cost of having no mechanism. When the market chooses between a token that pays you and one that doesn't, it chooses the one that pays.
For treasuries, the right question isn't which mechanism maximizes upside. The data suggests none reliably do. The right question is which mechanism makes this token investable from an institutional allocator's fundamental perspective.
That perspective immediately excludes Pure Governance and the Hybrid category. It favors Buyback & Hold with transparent treasury disclosure, Buyback & Burn for scaled protocols (Hyperliquid), Direct Fee Distribution for mature revenue-generating protocols, and, for narrower DEX-native tokens, the ve model tied to an active bribe market.
For every other token, including most launched in the past 24 months, the honest answer is: retrofit a mechanism before the next unlock. Do it while you still have the option.
The full interactive report with all 159 protocols and filterable datasets is live here:
https://www.novora.co/research/value-accrual-2026.html
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. All data has been verified against public sources as of April 2026. Novora may have advisory relationships with protocols mentioned in this report. Always conduct your own research and consult a qualified financial advisor before making investment decisions.
