Jupiter price

To make a long story short: Treehouse is about to launch the $TREE buyback. In terms of execution details: 50% of protocol revenue will be directly invested in buybacks. Public buybacks + irregular execution (at least once a week) + buyback tokens deposited into the DAO treasury. The key question is whether this buyback scale can have a substantial impact? First, let's look at the revenue data. According to DefiLlama, Treehouse has an annualized revenue of $11 million. With a 50% buyback ratio, the annual buyback amount is about $5.5 million. Although the absolute amount is not huge, considering the current circulating market cap of $26 million for $TREE, the buyback strength and its potential impact are still considerable. We can refer to other buyback cases. Aave: 95,000 tokens bought back over 6 months, with the price rising from $130 to $295. Hyperliquid: Cumulative buybacks exceeding $490 million, with the price rebounding 400% from the low. Metaplex: Bought back 91.71 million MPLX, with the price increasing by 125%. Of course, there are counterexamples. After Jupiter announced its buyback, the JUP price performed flat, mainly dragged down by overall market sentiment. Treehouse has several advantages compared to other cases. More stable revenue model. Unlike meme platforms that profit from volatility, Treehouse provides infrastructure services, which are essential. Smaller market cap. $26 million vs. Aave's tens of billions, the same buyback funds have a greater marginal impact on price. The only issue is that to make the buyback perception stronger among users and the market, relying solely on media promotion is not enough. It is recommended to collaborate with platforms like fomo, register an official account, and showcase buyback status weekly. Once the $TREE price rises, it can create a positive promotional cycle. $GAME did this before, and it worked well.