2026-01-12 05:28:37

Recently compiled income data for several leading DeFi protocols, and I want to discuss which ones have stronger value capture capabilities.

The data sources mainly refer to Defillama and Coingecko, which may have some biases but should reflect the general trend. Sorted by protocol income in 2025, the results are quite interesting:

**HYPE** currently estimates protocol income at approximately $903M, with nearly 99% of fees flowing into the buyback and burn mechanism. This design is the most direct benefit for token holders. **PUMP** follows closely, with estimated income in the range of $278-401M, also employing a high proportion of buyback and burn strategy, resulting in holder benefits of about $392M.

**JUP**'s estimated income is around $77M (based on Q3 data), but a key point is that it distributes 50% of its income to JUP holders. This transparent dividend mechanism has attracted many participants. **CAKE** and **GMX** perform relatively conservatively; CAKE conducts buybacks and burns through transaction fees of 0.03-0.0575%, while GMX's income is estimated between $12-30M.

Looking at these data, the differences in the value capture logic among protocols are quite evident. Some take an extreme buyback and burn route, while others prefer to directly distribute to holders. This also reflects different teams' understanding of tokenomics and market strategies. It feels like the design ideas behind these protocols are worth in-depth study.

HYPE-1,88%

PUMP5,31%

JUP-0,64%

CAKE1,13%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

12 Likes

Reward
12
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

ZenMiner

· 01-12 05:58

HYPE's 99% buyback and burn... This number seems a bit exaggerated, can it really be sustained? --- JUP's 50% dividend mechanism is quite straightforward, much better than daily burn hype. --- Wait, GMX only has $12-30M in revenue? How did it drop so quickly? --- Basically, it's still a contest between buyback and burn versus direct distribution. Let's see who can last longer. --- PUMP also plays with high ratio burns? Fine, another round of the rookie relay race. --- Are these data really accurate? It feels like they change every month. --- I'm a bit curious how HYPE suddenly surged so high... --- Honestly, I really like the transparent dividend approach, at least knowing how much I can get.

View OriginalReply0

quiet_lurker

· 01-12 05:56

HYPE's 99% burn is indeed aggressive, but can it really drive the market up? JUP's dividend model feels more practical, transparent, and straightforward. PUMP data seems a bit inflated; it doesn't seem that exaggerated. Everyone is competing for value capture, but the key is who can truly retain popularity. Buyback and burn ≠ token appreciation; this logic is a bit reversed. GMX being so low-key is actually quite interesting, a quiet way to make money. JUP's 50% distribution ratio definitely appeals more to holders. Can relying solely on fee design determine the outcome? I think it's uncertain. CAKE's strategy is the most conservative, but also the safest. Data may have biases, but the overall direction should be correct.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeePhobia

· 01-12 05:51

HYPE 99% Burn? Is that true? Feels exaggerated. --- JUP's transparent dividend distribution is really top-notch, much better than those protocols with hidden operations. --- Honestly, buyback and burn is still more popular; holders directly benefit. --- GMX only 12-30M? That data needs updating. --- Why is CAKE so low-key? Weren't they quite popular before? --- Strong value capture ability does not necessarily mean the coin price can rise. Don't confuse the two. --- Pump 400M in revenue? Is there that much? Where does the data come from? --- Different design logic, but ultimately it's about ecosystem and application scenarios. --- The direct distribution model to holders is indeed more transparent. Kudos to JUP for this approach. --- You're right, but with DeFi protocols so competitive now, income can't be guaranteed.

View OriginalReply0

WalletWhisperer

· 01-12 05:40

hype's 99% burn mechanic is lowkey just destroying price discovery... wallet clustering on these buyback protocols shows predictable accumulation patterns before every dump lmao

Reply0

RugPullSurvivor

· 01-12 05:35

HYPE's 99% buyback and burn is crazy. How long will it take to see actual results? JUP's 50% dividend mechanism is what players want—straightforward, transparent, no nonsense. GMX's numbers are a bit grim, only 12-30M. What's going on? Buyback and burn sound great, but it depends on the subsequent price trend. Promises floating in the air are the cheapest. PUMP's 392M holder rewards sound appealing, but I'm worried it's just another data game. This data seems a bit complicated. I'll take another look to see if I can translate it into plain language. Ultimately, the strength of value capture depends on whether the secondary market is willing to buy in. Good data alone isn't enough. Aren't there any protocols here that truly put people at ease? I always feel something's off.

View OriginalReply0