¿Sigue siendo una estrategia viable de asignación de capital la recompra de tokens en el año 2026?

In 2026, the crypto and traditional finance worlds continue to grapple with the efficacy of token buybacks as a capital allocation strategy. Once hailed as a panacea for boosting token value, buybacks have faced mounting scrutiny amid market saturation, structural supply imbalances, and evolving investor expectations. This analysis critically evaluates their viability, drawing on recent data, case studies, and macroeconomic trends.

Market Saturation and Diminishing Returns

The token buyback market has reached a critical inflection point. In 2025, over $880 million was spent on buybacks across crypto projects, yet price impacts were muted, with many initiatives failing to translate spending into sustained value appreciation. For instance, Hyperliquid's $644.6 million buyback program in late 2025 saw no meaningful price response, underscoring the limitations of liquidity-driven strategies in highly volatile markets. Similarly, Uniswap's $578 million token burn in late 2025 stabilized its price temporarily but failed to offset broader sell-offs triggered by token unlocks.

The saturation is further evident in traditional markets. Companies like General Motors (GM) and Southwest Airlines (LUV) achieved buyback yields of 10.8% and 12.6% in 2025, respectively, but these figures now reflect a crowded landscape where aggressive repurchases are the norm rather than the exception. As The Block Research warns, "shortsighted buyback-and-burn strategies will likely backfire in 2026 as cash reserves decline and market sentiment deteriorates." This suggests that while buybacks remain a tool, their marginal utility is diminishing in oversaturated environments.

Structural Supply-Demand Imbalances

A key challenge lies in the imbalance between buyback spending and ongoing token supply inflations. For example, Hyperliquid's buyback coverage ratio-defined as buyback volume divided by newly unlocked supply-stands at 10x, meaning that for every 10 tokens bought back, 100 are unlocked, negating the intended scarcity effect. This dynamic is not unique to crypto: in traditional markets, companies like Apple and Microsoft have faced similar critiques when buybacks outpace earnings growth, eroding long-term value.

In crypto, the problem is compounded by the lack of regulatory guardrails. Projects like Ethena and Optimism face unlock-to-buyback ratios exceeding 13x, creating a "race to the bottom" where buybacks merely offset dilution rather than driving price discovery. Conversely, successful models like Ethereum's EIP-1559 burns and Binance Coin's structured burns demonstrate that permanent supply reduction-rather than temporary liquidity management-can create durable value.

Investor Sentiment and Strategic Shifts

Investor sentiment in 2026 reflects a nuanced shift. While buybacks remain a signal of management confidence, they are now evaluated alongside broader capital allocation decisions. For example, Jupiter and Helium paused buybacks in 2025 to redirect capital toward ecosystem development, a move that resonated with investors prioritizing utility over speculative narratives. Similarly, AI-driven capital expenditures by hyperscalers like Amazon and Alphabet have diverted institutional capital toward sectors with clearer growth trajectories, reducing the allure of buyback-driven strategies.

However, structured buybacks still hold appeal in niche markets. Projects like Fluid and Aave have integrated revenue into buyback programs, aligning tokenholder incentives with platform growth. These models suggest that buybacks are most effective when paired with demand generation-such as expanding user bases or enhancing token utility-rather than operating in isolation.

The Road Ahead: Balancing Scarcity and Utility

The 2026 outlook for token buybacks hinges on two factors: regulatory clarity and ecosystem maturation. As Tiger Research notes, institutional adoption and ETF launches are expected to bring greater liquidity to crypto markets, potentially amplifying the impact of well-structured buybacks. However, this will require projects to move beyond "Tokenomics 1.0" and adopt transparent, data-driven frameworks for measuring buyback effectiveness.

For investors, the key takeaway is to prioritize projects that balance supply reduction with demand creation. Bitcoin's projected $250,000 price tag in 2026, driven by institutional adoption, highlights the importance of fundamentals over short-term tokenomics gimmicks. In altcoins, projects like Solana and Ethereum-positioned for infrastructure and transactional demand-offer more compelling value propositions than those reliant solely on buybacks.

Conclusion

Token buybacks remain a viable tool in 2026, but their effectiveness is contingent on execution. In saturated markets, they must be paired with sustainable demand drivers, transparent governance, and structural supply management. As the industry matures, investors should treat buybacks as one component of a broader capital allocation strategy rather than a standalone solution. For projects, the lesson is clear: scarcity alone cannot offset poor fundamentals.