Meteora (MET) Price Prediction

Deep Dive

1. Tokenomics & Buybacks (Bullish Impact)

Overview: Meteora has shifted to a value-return strategy centered on discretionary buybacks and a new utility system. In Q4 2025, the protocol spent $10.6 million USDC—88% of its quarterly revenue—to buy back 2.3% of the total MET supply. This is conducted from a public wallet, with 1.8M USDC reserved for future purchases. Concurrently, the Comet Points economy rewards users for staking MET and using products, redeemable for airdrops, presale access, and services.

What this means: If sustained, buybacks could neutralize the quarterly unlock of 22 million MET, preventing net supply inflation—a direct bullish mechanism for price. However, this hinges entirely on Meteora maintaining or growing its revenue, which has shown recent softening. The Comet Points system could increase staking demand and reduce sell pressure, but its impact depends on the perceived value of rewards.

2. Solana Ecosystem Dependence (Bearish Impact)

Overview: MET’s revenue is heavily driven by trading fees from Solana-based tokens, especially meme coins. Recent data shows Solana’s meme economy unraveling: weekly DEX volume plunged 62% in three weeks by early 2026, with Meteora’s own volume down 83%. This crash mirrors broader weakness in SOL price and a shift of speculative traffic to other chains.

What this means: MET’s price is structurally vulnerable to Solana’s speculative cycles. A prolonged downturn in Solana DeFi activity would directly pressure protocol earnings, undermining the buyback program and reducing fee demand for MET. Recovery would require a resurgence in Solana-based token launches and trading volume, which is uncertain in the near term.

3. Regulatory & Reputation Risks (Mixed Impact)

Overview: Meteora faces ongoing scrutiny. Polymarket traders price it as the top suspect in an insider-trading investigation led by ZachXBT, citing its role as a hub for launches like $TRUMP where insiders reportedly earned $1.2B. Past controversies include a U.S. class-action lawsuit naming founder Benjamin Chow over alleged involvement in the “LIBRA” and “MELANIA” token scams.

What this means: These allegations create a regulatory overhang that could deter institutional interest and provoke sell-offs if investigations escalate. Conversely, a clear resolution or demonstrated transparency could improve credibility. The risk is asymmetric: negative developments could sharply impact price, while positive resolution might only slowly rebuild trust.

Conclusion

MET’s near-term trajectory is caught between a proactive, revenue-driven tokenomics model and severe headwinds from its native Solana ecosystem. For holders, the path hinges on whether buybacks can outpace dilution while the protocol navigates reputational challenges and awaits a broader Solana recovery.

Will quarterly protocol revenue be sufficient to sustain the buyback pace that defines MET’s scarcity thesis?