159 Crypto Protocols Tested: Besides Hyperliquid, All Tokens with Buyback Mechanisms Are Losing Money
- Core Insight: Revenue scale is the key determinant of token returns, not the value accrual mechanism itself; protocols with an average daily revenue exceeding $500,000 have significantly better average returns than those without revenue, revealing that the market actually rewards business fundamentals over mechanism design.
- Key Findings:
- Active value accrual (49 protocols) had a 1-year average token return of -55%, while pure governance tokens (48 protocols) stood at -65%. However, the gap narrows after removing top-performing projects.
- The top quintile of protocols by daily revenue had an average return of +8%, while the bottom quintile saw -81%; revenue scale is a more predictive factor than mechanism classification.
- The buyback and burn category had an average return of -35%, but excluding Hyperliquid (+193%) dropped it to -56%, demonstrating that the data is significantly influenced by a single project.
- The only ve-model token with a positive return, Aerodrome (+5%), relies on continuous capital inflows from the Base ecosystem; other ve-model tokens saw losses ranging from -54% to -84%.
- The hybrid category (including 62 tokens with points programs, RWAs, memecoins, etc.) had an average return of -71%; the lack of cash flow support leads to price collapses after airdrop unlocks.
- Among 135 protocols with available data, only 5 had positive returns over the past year, with a median return of -66%.
Original Author: Connor King
Original Translation: TechFlow
Overview: This article tests 6 token value accrual mechanisms across 159 protocols and finds that revenue scale matters more than mechanism design—protocols with daily revenue over $500,000 posted an average return of +8%, while the lowest tier averaged -81%. More critically, many seemingly "winning" mechanisms flip immediately when one or two top projects are removed, offering direct reference value for investor token selection.
We mapped 6 value accrual mechanisms across 159 tokens and tested which mechanisms actually translate into returns for token holders.
Most narratives in crypto about 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 no value to token holders.
This article is a companion analysis. We took a dataset of 159 protocols, classified each token by 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 and burn, buyback and hold, vote-escrowed (ve model), pure governance, and other/hybrid models.
Here are our findings:
Active Accrual Outperforms Pure Governance by 10 Percentage Points
The 49 protocols using direct fees, buyback and burn, buyback and hold, and ve models averaged a -55% return 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 but distribute none of it to token holders. The opportunity cost is the most glaring part of the dataset.
Pure governance is the investor relations equivalent of a listed company that neither pays dividends nor buys back shares. Eventually, allocators stop pretending it's a going concern and begin pricing it as an option on management waking up.
Hyperliquid IS the Buyback and Burn Category
On the surface, buyback and burn wins this year (average -35%), with buyback and hold coming second (-52%). This looks like a clean victory for burns.
But the story reverses when Hyperliquid is excluded. Remove HYPE, and buyback and burn averages -56%, while buyback and hold averages -52%. One token defines the entire category.
Meteora is the cleanest buyback and hold case. A $10 million buyback program, a Novora investor relations score of 95/100, transparent treasury accumulation. Down ~40% this year, below the category median. Holding buybacks in a transparent treasury preserves optionality and creates visible, audited supply. Destruction destroys optionality in exchange for a marketing headline.
Revenue Scale is the Real Signal
Sorting the 50 protocols with clear Artemis revenue data by daily revenue, the pattern is clearer than any mechanism classification.
Protocols in the top revenue quintile posted an average return of +8%. 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 readable model for institutional allocators because it maps cleanly to dividends. dYdX runs the textbook version: 100% of trading fees to stakers, 75% of net income for buybacks, best-in-class investor relations infrastructure.
dYdX is down 82% over the past 12 months. The mechanism ran exactly as promised, but the business did not.
Hyperliquid is the opposite. Buyback and burn via the assistance fund (99% of fees), zero traditional investor relations infrastructure, +193% annual return.
If you are an allocator, this is the clearest read from the dataset: you are buying a share of protocol revenue. If revenue declines, the token will decline. Mechanism is table stakes; 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 relies on inflows from the Base ecosystem to sustain its bribe market.
Velodrome, Curve, Balancer, and every smaller ve fork are down -54% to -84%. The ve flywheel works, but the flywheel requires continuous new capital. When capital stops flowing, the entire structure collapses.
This is not a criticism of the model. It is an acknowledgment that ve tokens are leveraged bets on ecosystem inflows, not necessarily bets on pure protocol fundamentals.
Hybrid Category Averages -71%
Point programs, RWAs, LRTs, memecoins, 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 cohort, the entire memecoin cohort. These tokens trade on narrative and TGE airdrop farming, not on cash flow mechanisms. Once the airdrop unlocks are complete, nothing is left to support the price.
Investor readability is the fundamental problem. An allocator cannot underwrite a token whose accrual mechanism depends on future narratives.
The Big Picture
Average 1-year returns by accrual model:
Buyback and Burn: -35% (pulled by Hyperliquid; -56% without HYPE)
Buyback and Hold: -52%
Direct Fee Distribution: -55%
Pure Governance: -65%
Vote-Escrowed (ve Model): -67%
Other/Hybrid: -71%
Of 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 does penalize tokens with no mechanism at all.
The clearest empirical read in 2025 is this: value accrual did not produce excess returns, revenue did. But the 48 pure governance protocols in the dataset show the cost of having no mechanism. When the market chooses between a token that pays you and one that doesn't, it picks the one that pays.
For treasuries, the right question is not which mechanism maximizes upside. The data shows no mechanism does so reliably. The right question is which mechanism makes this token look investable from an institutional allocator's fundamental perspective.
That perspective immediately excludes pure governance and hybrid categories. It favors buyback and hold with transparent treasury disclosure, buyback and burn for scaled protocols (Hyperliquid), direct fee distribution for mature revenue-generating protocols, and for narrow-range DEX native tokens, ve models tied to an active bribe market.
For everyone else, including most tokens 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 a filterable dataset is live:
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 is verified from 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.
