JUPUSD
Jupiter / United States dollar
crypto Composite

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?

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?