Long story short: Treehouse is launching a TREE buyback. Details on execution: 50% of protocol revenue will go directly into buybacks Public buybacks + irregular execution (at least once a week) + buyback tokens deposited into the DAO treasury The key question is, can this buyback scale have a substantial impact? Let’s first look at the revenue data. According to DefiLlama, Treehouse’s annualized revenue is $11 million. With a 50% buyback ratio, the annual buyback amount is approximately $5.5 million. Although the absolute amount isn’t massive, considering TREE’s current circulating market cap of $26 million, the buyback intensity and its potential impact are still significant. Let’s reference other buyback cases: Aave: 95,000 tokens bought back over 6 months, price rose from $130 to $295 Hyperliquid: Over $490 million cumulatively bought back, price rebounded 400% from the low Metaplex: 91.71 million MPLX tokens bought back, price increased by 125% Of course, there are counterexamples too. After Jupiter announced its buyback, JUP’s price remained flat, mainly due to overall market sentiment dragging it down. Treehouse has several advantages compared to other cases: More stable revenue model. Unlike meme platforms that rely on volatility to make money, Treehouse provides infrastructure services, which are essential. Smaller market cap base. $26 million vs Aave’s multi-billion-dollar market cap—similar buyback funds have a greater marginal impact on price. The only issue is that to make the buyback more perceptible to users and the market, media promotion alone isn’t enough. It’s recommended to collaborate with platforms like fomo, register an official account, and showcase buyback progress weekly. Once TREE’s price rises, it can create a positive feedback loop for promotion. GAME did this before, and it worked well.