AMMUSD
MicroMoney / United States dollar
crypto

After the SEC staff FAQ last week, every other token is announcing "revenue-funded buybacks, verifiable onchain." I wanted to see how verifiable they actually are, so I picked 5 well-known programs and compared what was promised with what the data shows.
Short version: two are running and I could check them onchain myself (one matches, one comes in under the promise), two look consistent with their published numbers, and one is paused.
**1. HYPE (Hyperliquid) — kept** Promise: \~99% of fees go to the Assistance Fund, which buys HYPE. Data: I pulled the Assistance Fund's fills from the Hyperliquid API. From Sept 12 to 30 it bought about $39.3M of HYPE. DefiLlama reports $36.8M of revenue for the same days. Buys match or exceed the promise.
**2. RAY (Raydium) — consistent with the published split** Promise: 12% of trading fees go to RAY buybacks. On CLMM/CPMM pools another 4% goes to treasury; on the older AMM v4 pools there's no treasury cut. Data: DefiLlama's holder revenue is a median 76% of protocol revenue over the last 60 days. With that split, the expected range is 75% (all CLMM/CPMM) to 100% (all AMM v4), so 76% fits if most volume is on the newer pools. It varies day to day, so it's measured, not assumed.
**3. PUMP (Pump.fun) — mostly kept, but "net" is doing a lot of work** Promise: 50% of net revenue to buy back and burn PUMP. Data: holder revenue is a median 45% of revenue on DefiLlama (range 40–51% over 60 days). Close to 50%, but "net revenue" isn't clearly defined anywhere I could find, so you can't check the exact number.
**4. AAVE — paused** Promise: Aavenomics buybacks, now described as automated under Aavenomics 3.0. Data: buybacks have been paused since April 19 after the rsETH incident, per Aave governance, and DefiLlama shows $0 holder revenue for the last 30 days. Fair enough, it was disclosed, but if you only read headlines about "automated buybacks" you'd think they're running.
**5. JUP (Jupiter) — running, but below the promised 50%** Promise: 50% of revenue goes to the Litterbox, which buys JUP. Dashboard: DefiLlama shows holder revenue at exactly 50.0% of revenue every single day. That's because it's calculated from the policy, not measured. The methodology says so. Onchain: so I checked the Litterbox wallet itself (6tZT9AUcQn4iHMH79YZEXSy55kDLQ4VbA3PMtfLVNsFX on Solscan). Buybacks are clearly running, with JUP landing every few minutes, and it now holds about 173M JUP. But from Sept 2 to Oct 1 it received about $2.28M of JUP (Solscan analytics), while 50% of DefiLlama's revenue for Sept 2–30 is about $3.05M. The wallet window even has one extra day in it. That's roughly 75% of what the policy implies, or about 37% of revenue instead of 50%. There are innocent explanations: timing (revenue now, buys later), some products' fees not counted in the 50%, or buys routed through another wallet. But you can't tell any of that from the dashboard, and that's the point. If someone from Jupiter can explain the gap, I'll update this.
**What I took from this:**
* A constant ratio (exactly 50%, exactly 100%) on a dashboard usually means the number is modeled from the announcement, not measured.
* The big programs mostly hold up. The ones to worry about are the smaller tokens running "verifiable buyback" campaigns that never publish a percentage, a schedule, or a wallet.
* If a project won't tell you which wallet executes the buyback, you can't verify anything.
Method and caveats: DefiLlama fees API (holder revenue vs revenue), Hyperliquid info API for the Assistance Fund fills, governance posts for policy. Prices are at fill time. I may have missed policy changes, so corrections are welcome.
Which token should I check next?

Robinhood using Uniswap for tokenized stock liquidity for the AMM is a fundamentally important achievement. My favorite "real world" use case so far.

**Source:** [https://x.com/flint\_trade\_/status/2105554633477525527](https://x.com/flint_trade_/status/2105554633477525527)
https://preview.redd.it/ltal3yriivsh1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=4776948dec0cf59520939275a5b2b2081c080814
Flint is building a fully on-chain perp DEX on Solana. Perps has been the goal since day one. Spot was the first step.
You already know why we are building a perp DEX: it is one of the most active products in crypto, with over [$2.4 trillion traded on perp DEXs in the first four months of 2026](https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/state-of-crypto-perpetuals-report-2026). It also has the clearest product-market fit, which is why there are so many of them. The last thing the industry needs is another run of the mill perp DEX. We would not be doing this if we did not think there was clear space to carve out and make our own.
**Why** [**@solana**](https://x.com/@solana)**?**
Aside from industry leading DEX activity, it is one of the few places where a fully on-chain perp DEX is possible:
* No off-chain matching engine.
* No centralized sequencer.
* No need to bootstrap your own network of independent validators.
Flint is built on a simple premise: real DeFi is on-chain and verifiable. Everything else is trust with better branding. We’ll stay on-chain unless the user experience is compromised.
How we got here
While we were building the foundations for perps, we realised we already had most of the components needed to launch simple spot swaps. There was also a clear gap in [Solana market maker infrastructure](https://x.com/flint_trade_/status/2080352786198171901).
We saw spot as a useful first step. It put our product and API in market makers’ hands early and gave them a low-friction path to Solana’s spot flow. It proved out the multi-maker prop AMM and let us build in public so that feedback could shape what comes next.
**Where we are going**
https://preview.redd.it/dumlvtjnivsh1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=f515e50e49438415f3fd291bc0e5e7619ad80b29
The destination is a perp DEX, with a closed alpha live by the end of the year, architected as a multi-maker prop AMM, featuring:
* Multi-collateral support through a pooled borrow/lend market with an interest model.
* Cross-margin accounting, so collateral works as one balance rather than a set of silos.
* A limit order book alongside maker liquidity.
* A composite book that merges every maker’s quotes with the limit book into a single pool of liquidity, matched pro rata against incoming flow.
* Maker books that let market makers post, skew and pull size in bulk, with oracle-driven updates cheap enough to requote as often as the market demands.
**How we get there**
https://preview.redd.it/fvk1uyjpivsh1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=99dd41d0b407d9f01452cebd8b533a516683753c
These are the principles that guide what we are building:
Verifiable core logic. There is no engine, process, or party to trust. Pricing, matching, allocation, and execution happen on-chain, under rules anyone can inspect. Not published outputs from an engine you are not allowed to look inside. To be clear: the code is not available today. The claim is about where the logic runs, not about what we have published so far.
Compete on price, not speed. On most order books the fill goes to whoever arrives first, so the real edge is latency. Flint is architected as a multi-maker prop AMM with pro rata matching. When several quotes sit at the best price, Flint allocates the fill across them in proportion to size rather than by arrival order. Competitive pricing and depth determine participation in that fill. Our goal is to give more makers access to flow and to give takers deeper liquidity.
Aligned by structure, not by promise. Everyone trades under the same published rules, and better terms are earned under those rules rather than negotiated on a one-off basis.
The complexity is ours to own. Perp trading is hard enough before everything runs on-chain. That difficulty is ours to absorb, not yours to learn. Makers quote; we handle gas, priority fees and transaction landing, so they can focus on pricing and risk. That is already how spot works, and perps will be no different. Traders get the same from the other side: an ergonomic interface that does not make you learn the machinery, but has it available when you want it.
Your collateral should do more work. We are building multi-collateral support so supported assets can back a position without being sold first. Cross margin accounting lets your collateral work across your account rather than sitting in separate silos.
**Next**
You can expect to hear more from us closer to Breakpoint 👀
Do you trade perps actively? If so, get in touch with us about Flint’s closed Alpha.
If you are a market maker, the spot quoting path is live now. Integrating today lets you get familiar with Flint's quoting model and infrastructure ahead of perps. Makers on Flint spot pay no fees and are eligible for the spot rebate pools through the Frontier Traders program.

**Where to find us**
* Follow Flint: [https://x.com/flint\_trade\_](https://x.com/flint_trade_)
* Follow the team: [@josh\_e\_wa](https://x.com/@josh_e_wa), [@thedavidgorski](https://x.com/@thedavidgorski), [@\_rustopian](https://x.com/@_rustopian), [@davethereiss](https://x.com/@davethereiss)
* Website: [https://flint.trade/](https://flint.trade/)
* Contact: [Hello@Flint.Trade](mailto:Hello@Flint.Trade)

After the SEC staff FAQ last week, every other token is announcing "revenue-funded buybacks, verifiable onchain." I wanted to see how verifiable they actually are, so I picked 5 well-known programs and compared what was promised with what the data shows.
Short version: two are running and I could check them onchain myself (one matches, one comes in under the promise), two look consistent with their published numbers, and one is paused.
**1. HYPE (Hyperliquid) — kept** Promise: \~99% of fees go to the Assistance Fund, which buys HYPE. Data: I pulled the Assistance Fund's fills from the Hyperliquid API. From Sept 12 to 30 it bought about $39.3M of HYPE. DefiLlama reports $36.8M of revenue for the same days. Buys match or exceed the promise.
**2. RAY (Raydium) — consistent with the published split** Promise: 12% of trading fees go to RAY buybacks. On CLMM/CPMM pools another 4% goes to treasury; on the older AMM v4 pools there's no treasury cut. Data: DefiLlama's holder revenue is a median 76% of protocol revenue over the last 60 days. With that split, the expected range is 75% (all CLMM/CPMM) to 100% (all AMM v4), so 76% fits if most volume is on the newer pools. It varies day to day, so it's measured, not assumed.
**3. PUMP (Pump.fun) — mostly kept, but "net" is doing a lot of work** Promise: 50% of net revenue to buy back and burn PUMP. Data: holder revenue is a median 45% of revenue on DefiLlama (range 40–51% over 60 days). Close to 50%, but "net revenue" isn't clearly defined anywhere I could find, so you can't check the exact number.
**4. AAVE — paused** Promise: Aavenomics buybacks, now described as automated under Aavenomics 3.0. Data: buybacks have been paused since April 19 after the rsETH incident, per Aave governance, and DefiLlama shows $0 holder revenue for the last 30 days. Fair enough, it was disclosed, but if you only read headlines about "automated buybacks" you'd think they're running.
**5. JUP (Jupiter) — running, but below the promised 50%** Promise: 50% of revenue goes to the Litterbox, which buys JUP. Dashboard: DefiLlama shows holder revenue at exactly 50.0% of revenue every single day. That's because it's calculated from the policy, not measured. The methodology says so. Onchain: so I checked the Litterbox wallet itself (6tZT9AUcQn4iHMH79YZEXSy55kDLQ4VbA3PMtfLVNsFX on Solscan). Buybacks are clearly running, with JUP landing every few minutes, and it now holds about 173M JUP. But from Sept 2 to Oct 1 it received about $2.28M of JUP (Solscan analytics), while 50% of DefiLlama's revenue for Sept 2–30 is about $3.05M. The wallet window even has one extra day in it. That's roughly 75% of what the policy implies, or about 37% of revenue instead of 50%. There are innocent explanations: timing (revenue now, buys later), some products' fees not counted in the 50%, or buys routed through another wallet. But you can't tell any of that from the dashboard, and that's the point. If someone from Jupiter can explain the gap, I'll update this.
**What I took from this:**
* A constant ratio (exactly 50%, exactly 100%) on a dashboard usually means the number is modeled from the announcement, not measured.
* The big programs mostly hold up. The ones to worry about are the smaller tokens running "verifiable buyback" campaigns that never publish a percentage, a schedule, or a wallet.
* If a project won't tell you which wallet executes the buyback, you can't verify anything.
Method and caveats: DefiLlama fees API (holder revenue vs revenue), Hyperliquid info API for the Assistance Fund fills, governance posts for policy. Prices are at fill time. I may have missed policy changes, so corrections are welcome.
Which token should I check next?

Robinhood using Uniswap for tokenized stock liquidity for the AMM is a fundamentally important achievement. My favorite "real world" use case so far.

**Source:** [https://x.com/flint\_trade\_/status/2105554633477525527](https://x.com/flint_trade_/status/2105554633477525527)
https://preview.redd.it/ltal3yriivsh1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=4776948dec0cf59520939275a5b2b2081c080814
Flint is building a fully on-chain perp DEX on Solana. Perps has been the goal since day one. Spot was the first step.
You already know why we are building a perp DEX: it is one of the most active products in crypto, with over [$2.4 trillion traded on perp DEXs in the first four months of 2026](https://www.coingecko.com/research/publications/state-of-crypto-perpetuals-report-2026). It also has the clearest product-market fit, which is why there are so many of them. The last thing the industry needs is another run of the mill perp DEX. We would not be doing this if we did not think there was clear space to carve out and make our own.
**Why** [**@solana**](https://x.com/@solana)**?**
Aside from industry leading DEX activity, it is one of the few places where a fully on-chain perp DEX is possible:
* No off-chain matching engine.
* No centralized sequencer.
* No need to bootstrap your own network of independent validators.
Flint is built on a simple premise: real DeFi is on-chain and verifiable. Everything else is trust with better branding. We’ll stay on-chain unless the user experience is compromised.
How we got here
While we were building the foundations for perps, we realised we already had most of the components needed to launch simple spot swaps. There was also a clear gap in [Solana market maker infrastructure](https://x.com/flint_trade_/status/2080352786198171901).
We saw spot as a useful first step. It put our product and API in market makers’ hands early and gave them a low-friction path to Solana’s spot flow. It proved out the multi-maker prop AMM and let us build in public so that feedback could shape what comes next.
**Where we are going**
https://preview.redd.it/dumlvtjnivsh1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=f515e50e49438415f3fd291bc0e5e7619ad80b29
The destination is a perp DEX, with a closed alpha live by the end of the year, architected as a multi-maker prop AMM, featuring:
* Multi-collateral support through a pooled borrow/lend market with an interest model.
* Cross-margin accounting, so collateral works as one balance rather than a set of silos.
* A limit order book alongside maker liquidity.
* A composite book that merges every maker’s quotes with the limit book into a single pool of liquidity, matched pro rata against incoming flow.
* Maker books that let market makers post, skew and pull size in bulk, with oracle-driven updates cheap enough to requote as often as the market demands.
**How we get there**
https://preview.redd.it/fvk1uyjpivsh1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=99dd41d0b407d9f01452cebd8b533a516683753c
These are the principles that guide what we are building:
Verifiable core logic. There is no engine, process, or party to trust. Pricing, matching, allocation, and execution happen on-chain, under rules anyone can inspect. Not published outputs from an engine you are not allowed to look inside. To be clear: the code is not available today. The claim is about where the logic runs, not about what we have published so far.
Compete on price, not speed. On most order books the fill goes to whoever arrives first, so the real edge is latency. Flint is architected as a multi-maker prop AMM with pro rata matching. When several quotes sit at the best price, Flint allocates the fill across them in proportion to size rather than by arrival order. Competitive pricing and depth determine participation in that fill. Our goal is to give more makers access to flow and to give takers deeper liquidity.
Aligned by structure, not by promise. Everyone trades under the same published rules, and better terms are earned under those rules rather than negotiated on a one-off basis.
The complexity is ours to own. Perp trading is hard enough before everything runs on-chain. That difficulty is ours to absorb, not yours to learn. Makers quote; we handle gas, priority fees and transaction landing, so they can focus on pricing and risk. That is already how spot works, and perps will be no different. Traders get the same from the other side: an ergonomic interface that does not make you learn the machinery, but has it available when you want it.
Your collateral should do more work. We are building multi-collateral support so supported assets can back a position without being sold first. Cross margin accounting lets your collateral work across your account rather than sitting in separate silos.
**Next**
You can expect to hear more from us closer to Breakpoint 👀
Do you trade perps actively? If so, get in touch with us about Flint’s closed Alpha.
If you are a market maker, the spot quoting path is live now. Integrating today lets you get familiar with Flint's quoting model and infrastructure ahead of perps. Makers on Flint spot pay no fees and are eligible for the spot rebate pools through the Frontier Traders program.

**Where to find us**
* Follow Flint: [https://x.com/flint\_trade\_](https://x.com/flint_trade_)
* Follow the team: [@josh\_e\_wa](https://x.com/@josh_e_wa), [@thedavidgorski](https://x.com/@thedavidgorski), [@\_rustopian](https://x.com/@_rustopian), [@davethereiss](https://x.com/@davethereiss)
* Website: [https://flint.trade/](https://flint.trade/)
* Contact: [Hello@Flint.Trade](mailto:Hello@Flint.Trade)