Bitwise Asset Management Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan believes crypto valuations could double, but the outcome hinges on one critical structural change across major blockchain networks.
In an Aug. 12, 2026 note, Hougan argued that blockchains need to direct a portion of their fee revenue toward buyback-like mechanisms that directly benefit token holders.
His preferred example of this model working in practice is Hyperliquid (HYPE), which has already destroyed more than $3.9 billion of its own token supply.
That burn represents 4.8% of Hyperliquid’s maximum supply, and the coin’s price has climbed 84% over the past 12 months alone.
Hyperliquid operates as a decentralized blockchain exchange specializing in perpetual futures contracts, generating $169 million in revenue during the second quarter of 2026.
Of that revenue, $141 million was automatically channeled into a fund that purchases the coin on the open market and permanently destroys it.
Hougan explicitly expects other major blockchains to copy Hyperliquid’s model within the next 12 to 24 months, which he believes would make it far easier to assess leading coin valuations.
Ethereum (ETH) currently burns part of every transaction fee, but the majority of fee revenue is paid out to the network’s validators rather than benefiting holders directly.
Solana (SOL) faces a similar structural issue, where daily issuance of new tokens is expected to grow the coin’s supply by roughly 3.6% per year, diluting holders over time despite partial burns.
Both networks are attempting to address these shortcomings through formal proposals, though early efforts have already encountered setbacks.
Solana’s first on-chain governance votes closed on Aug. 28, 2026, with proposal SGP-0003 calling for a fee restructure that would have lifted daily token burns.
The proposal failed to pass during voting, though analysts expect the issue to return for consideration in future governance rounds.
Ethereum, meanwhile, has more than one Ethereum Improvement Proposal currently under evaluation that targets similar fee and burn mechanics.
The structural changes required are not technically impossible, and the economic logic behind Hougan’s thesis is straightforward for investors to follow.
If a network earns more in fees than it issues in new tokens, and directs those surplus fees toward buying and destroying its own supply, holders benefit in a manner analogous to stock buybacks.
The challenge for both Ethereum and Solana is navigating decentralized governance processes that require broad community consensus before any protocol-level changes can be implemented.
Hougan’s timeline of 12 to 24 months leaves room for multiple failed votes and revised proposals before any meaningful valuation shift occurs.
Markets will likely wait for confirmed protocol changes before pricing in the potential upside Hougan has outlined, meaning investors may need patience before the thesis plays out.
Whether Solana’s fee restructure returns for another vote in coming quarters, and whether Ethereum bundles its proposals into a formal upgrade, will be the key milestones to monitor.
