Five rounds of buybacks have burned nearly 19% of the initial supply. JST’s deflationary strength is among the most aggressive in the sector. But what’s worth examining is the mechanism adjustment JUST DAO made this October: buyback funds are shifting from reserves of historical revenue to recurring ecosystem revenue.
The previous rounds of buybacks were more like one-off actions: accumulate funds, then burn a batch. What the market saw was the token supply shrinking. Now that buybacks are supported by recurring revenue, the logic has changed—deflation no longer depends on a pool of existing funds, but is linked to the day-to-day output of businesses like JustLend and GasFree. JustLend’s TVL remained above $7 billion at the end of the quarter, while GasFree processed around 21.24 million transactions in a single quarter. These are the foundations of its revenue streams. Starting in Q4 2026, the plan is to allocate around $20.34 million in surplus funds to buybacks over four installments, while keeping at least $50 million in treasury reserves for safety. The pace seems measured.
I’m cautiously optimistic: the mechanism upgrade itself is a good thing, but how much substance there is behind the words “recurring revenue” depends on whether revenue in future quarters can genuinely cover the scale of the buybacks. If ecosystem revenue is volatile, the deflationary trajectory will fluctuate too, and holders’ expectations may weaken. Buyback burns are the outcome, not the cause. The cause is always whether the business can keep generating cash flow.
So here’s the question for everyone: Do you think tying JST’s deflation to ecosystem revenue is a healthier long-term design, or does it simply shift uncertainty from the treasury onto holders?
$JST #JST #DeflationaryMechanism
$NVDB
$MSFTB #Cryptocurrency