Protocols That Burned the Most $HYPE 🔥 ▫️Trade[XYZ]- @tradexyz ▫️HyENA - @hyenatrade ▫️Paragon - @tradeparagon ▫️Kinetiq Markets - @Kinetiq_xyz ▫️Ventuals - @ventuals ▫️Felix - @felixprotocol ▫️Dreamcash- @Dreamcash ▫️EntropyIO - @entropyIO ▫️Unit - @unitxyz

Protocols being able to DM targeted LPs directly inside @turtledotxyz is a total game changer To be fair, i didn't even know @cityprotocolHQ existed until i opened this message in Turtle. Turns out they’ve secured $11M across seed and pre-A rounds, and they are already using Turtle to pitch LPs directly. What makes this really solid is we staying completely anon - protocols can reach out based on idle capital, but they have zero idea who is actually on the other end. On top of landing tailored offers, you can actually reply and chat with the protocol team directly in-app. Win-win for both protocols and LPs!

Protocols have already tried Kann AI Labs, and honestly, it was one of the best decisions they made. Our AI security tool uncovered 20+ Medium/High severity bugs in each protocol we tested. Want to try it during BETA ? Request Scan:

Reading Protocols by @hubermanlab, which is great. A proposed protocol to study for book 2: An observed but understudied longevity practice is dedicating a substantial amount of time over many years to art (creating, collecting, curating, etc). I meet an outlier number of the most sharp, energetic octogenarians+ in the art world (& rarely outside of it). Something about time dedicated to thinking about art seems to increase lucid health span significantly.

The protocols that route real revenue back to tokenholders are separating from the pack, and I think that's what the early stage of this altseason looks like. $HYPE set the template by sending roughly 97% of fees into buybacks, well over $1B repurchased so far, and the token is up about 55% in the last 30 days. $LIT has done even better over the same window at +102%, after burning 6.3% of circulating supply in July and moving staking rewards off revenue onto an ecosystem reserve so that trading fees go entirely to reducing supply. $PUMP is the reminder that buybacks alone don't carry a token. They put 100% of revenue into buybacks for nine months, burned $370M worth, and the token still spent most of the year below launch FDV before they cut the program to 50%. The mechanism works when there's growth underneath it. $ENA is the clearest example of a team fixing alignment on purpose. The Foundation bought out the seed investors who had been selling, ended monthly VC unlocks with a single release in October, moved the protocol IP under tokenholder governance, and put a 5–20% revenue fee switch to a vote that turns on as USDe scales past $7.5B. Then they shipped Ethena Pay on Avalanche last week. $ENA is up 84% in a month. ethereum:0xfe0c30065b384f05761f15d0cc899d4f9f9cc0eb is the largest DeFi-native neobank at roughly $100M a month in card spend, and it just passed a vote to make buybacks programmatic. A share of interchange, swap and staking revenue now gets TWAP'd into ethereum:0xfe0c30065b384f05761f15d0cc899d4f9f9cc0eb on chain every week, with 30% of each fee buying ETHFI for the Foundation treasury and another 30% buying ETHFI that goes back to the user as cashback. Two tokens bought for every one paid out, and rewards are funded by open-market purchases rather than new issuance. ethereum:0x643c4e15d7d62ad0abec4a9bd4b001aa3ef52d66 is the one I think is most mispriced. Maple's AUM is $4.6B, up 81% year over year, buybacks went from discretionary to programmatic in August under MIP-021, and syrupUSDG is now live inside Robinhood Earn with access to 25M funded accounts. The token is still around 76% below its 2025 high. What other alts are you watching that actually pay holders?

Four protocols I track describe themselves as buying back their own token, and the four promises have almost nothing in common. The word does a lot of hiding. A buyback can mean tokens are permanently destroyed, or that they are sitting in a vault someone still holds the keys to, or that a team has decided for now to spend some revenue this way and could decide otherwise next quarter. Those are different claims on future supply, and only one of them is irreversible. hyperliquid:native is the strict version. Protocol fees buy HYPE on the open market and the tokens go to an address with no private key, which makes the destruction provable rather than promised. Validators formalized the mechanism rather than leaving it as a team policy. That is about as binding as this gets. The catch is the buyback is denominated in dollars, so a rising price retires fewer tokens for the same spend. Tokens repurchased fell roughly 61% year over year while the dollars spent fell under 20%. The support mechanically weakens exactly when the price is working, and there is a separate overhang underneath it, with a large tranche of team tokens vested but unclaimed. ethereum:0x1f9840a85d5af5bf1d1762f925bdaddc4201f984 is the conditional version, and it is the newest. Governance had to vote the fee switch on, which it did in late July, and the mechanism itself is code rather than discretion. But the burn rate is a function of trading volume, and a meaningful share of that volume currently runs on a chain where gas is being subsidized. Day one spike burned 106,000 tokens. The 30-day mark lands Saturday, and the number that matters is the lowest sustained rate over the window rather than the average, because the average is still carrying the launch. solana:pumpCmXqMfrsAkQ5r49WcJnRayYRqmXz6ae8H7H9Dfn is the discretionary version. The share of revenue directed to buybacks was cut from most of it to half of it in April. The revenue is real and recovering, but the allocation is a dial the team controls, and it has already been turned once. A policy that has been changed is a policy that can be changed. Same dollar-denominated arithmetic applies here too. $LINK is the one most people misread. Chainlink converts revenue into LINK on the open market, including revenue from enterprise contracts that settle in dollars, which almost nobody else does. Then it puts the tokens in a timelocked reserve. A reserve is not a burn. The tokens still exist, and the contract permits them to move eventually. Scale is the bigger challenge as roughly $60 million a year of conversion against a market capitalization near $7 billion absorbs about 1% of supply, while team-managed unlocks have added multiples of that. Emissions are outrunning absorption by something close to ten to one. The business is winning its market. The token is losing the arithmetic. The ranking that matters is not which protocol buys back the most. It is which promise survives someone changing their mind. Provably unspendable beats code-executed beats team policy beats a vault with keys. The market frequently prices all four the same way. Observations, not advice.

Top Protocols by Holder Revenue in Last 30 Days ▫️@HyperliquidX : $32.65M ▫️@NestExchange : $223.8K ▫️@Kinetiq_xyz : $100.9K ▫️@RamsesExchange : $80.6K ▫️@KittenswapHype : $60.9K ▫️@HybraFinance : $54.2K ▫️@HyperSwapX : $14.6K ▫️@pendle_fi : $2.6K