Bitcoin Forum

sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?

 ::)

Agreed, i m not seen seeing the main point to create a big supply of token. I just see that a trick that has already made by the developers. We can take a look at pundi and how it was always creating more and more new tokens and then burned it. It looks like the reason for the creation of more supply totally non sense. Some developers said that it's to fit the development of the platform or even to get more adoption.
The total token supply is indeed static but it doesn't mean we need to create more and more supply like some crap projects that even create multi-billion supply which didn't make sense.

Probably its a strategy of most projects creating large supply then burn later. They burn tokens for some reason, one is they burn the unsold tokens from crowdfunding and number two in they are trying to make their token scarce by reducing supply.

I only assume that this is madness, if indeed a plan to take advantage, with reason aiming for development / development, it would be better to improve how we market and introduce tokens / coins themselves, so that the price of tokens / coins will look stable and can attract investors to the platform itself, and we are easier to meet our targets in the share market. maybe we can see a BTC inventory that only counts millions can reach prices that are so fantastic for now, with a price of $ 7000- $ 8000

Right, it doesn't make sense for a token to have a lot of supply in the very beginning. We all know that the value will go down hard. And the only way they can avoid it is by burning their tokens, but why not limit the supply in the beginning. Perhaps it is their plans in the very beginning, to at least bring some hype again specially when they announce their token burning. But I haven't seen a project becoming successful with this strategy though. Better to start small, like BTC, so that the price will steadily increase specially if the project is really that good.

Having an extremely high supply might also be something that certain tokens and coins use to inflate their market caps and thus gain a higher ranking on sites like CoinGecko and Coinmarketcap, which is unfortunate but seems true based on recent trends. I'm not a fan of any cryptocurrencies with massive supply for any reason, though, and I tend to stay away from such projects even if they promise to burn a large percentage of those coins or tokens in the future. Just seems very unpractical to me.

In many cases, burning tokens can help stabilize a coin's value and curb potential price inflation. The stability gives investors a greater incentive to hold the coins and keeps prices at more favorable rates, which therefore keeps network uptime and bandwidth healthy.^[1]
So for me, burning some tokens from the supply is quite good to help the coin's value itself, but there is some cryptocurrency that is burning some tokens with a small amount and you can't really feel the effect of it to the value of the coin. That's why some people are expecting once there are token burnings they started to think that the price or value of the coin will surge high or pump. There's lot of them, most are shitcoins and just making easy money from people, through manipulations.

---

[1] https://cointelegraph.com/explained/token-burning-explained

thats the way to decrease the supply they used it sometimes using buyback option to stablilized the priced and helping it to increase . It will also create hype because low supply means a chance that the pricr might go higher they will just add demand to make it happen.

Actually token supply doesn't matter at all. It's the circulating supply that is needed to watch out for. If the team has a huge token supply even though its billion its fine as long the set up for token economics are strictly follow like team distribution, the token for sale and some marketing funds and development. If the supply circulation is still low and coincide with the market then there is no problem with the price of it.

Burning of tokens is the way developer used to drive the price high. Its corresponds as profit of the project instead of giving dividend to token holder. That being said, they are using the law of supply and demand. It's not totally non-sense for a coin that is mineable or the majority of supply is in lockdown condition. That is the main reason why most project with token feature has a huge amount of supply.

I think the way of token burning in cryptocurrency is not fair yet , that made the investors are won't to invest when the tokens already burned because the previous holder are buyitng the tokens before the token burned which will really advantage for the previous holder. If the tokens burned by percent , the tokens that held by the holder must be burned by the same percent also, that will make fair. this is my personal opinion, no offense

The coins burning process helps strengthen the value of those coins/tokens in circulation and improves ratings per coins/tokens with lower outstanding coins/tokens, the net earnings per coins/tokens ratio increases. so nowadays some top coins like XML and more coins burned their coins. 

most projects develop strategies like this to raise the price of their tokens in the future.
because too much supply can cause the value of tokens to fall, so they anticipate it by burning it, even though it doesn't really affect some tokens with lots of supplies such as NPXS.

That sounds silly honestly. But that is done when the developers are really having a very hard time putting more value into their coins. So apart from doing more and more developments and promotions and creations of partnerships, they would also resort to burning of tokens. When all the efforts are just not enough, cutting the supply is an option. But even this one is not a guarantee that the token will rise in value.

There are coin win infinite supply like Ethereum, Monero, Hrin etc. I think they are doing well. There is no problem with supply. If the project or the token/coin have real usage, they will be stay on the market. At the long run like after 5 year, infinite supply coin will face inflation.

I think that is one marketing method. When there is a large supply, it is possible that the supply can be used to form a community where to airdrop or bounty, the developer must make a calculation. After the community is formed and the market cap is formed, then they raise prices with burn and buyback. Usually like that.
If the supply is low and burned, I think it's funny lol.

Supposedly with an unlimited supply that makes the price very cheap, circulation can also be dangerous because it can be used to manipulate prices at the exchange, so you better trade on coins that have very limited supply and are difficult to obtain because it will make the price becomes very expensive.

As I said above, infinite supply can be risky for long time. obviously it must have some use cases. On the other hand, without any real use, no coin will be expensive. Because without demand from real use, nothing will happen in the price of the coin.

That depends on the project how much they make tokens with the supply they want because the project always uses token lots for something else too.
After the project has been running for a long time, but tokens can also be burned because the reasons for the sales are not fulfilled, they will burn unsold tokens so that this can result in an increase also because the supply of tokens on the market is decreasing.
But sometimes with a lot of supply is not useful because of its large-scale mass sales.

I think it's uncertainty from the team, they might have thought many investors would grab the tokens a lot but after launch or few years they aren't satisfy with the result so they introduce burn process, it's not a bad idea to burn token supply

I think even though the project they developed is good but in reality the price is still very cheap, there are many altcoins like that you can see XRP and XLM, they have limited supply and have very good developers and developments and are widely used by companies, but the price cannot be expensive and currently the price is still very cheap, even though XLM has cut its supply in large quantities, it does not have a good effect on the price.

I also see it as a marketing strategy. Some investors somehow looks forward to these burning of token events that's why they buy that coin. It also allows the team to be more flexible depending on the market situation. A token/coin with 1 billion supply can do more "gimmick" to help keep the project afloat than a token/coin with 100 million.  

What I see is when the team burns the tokens they have made before is only for one thing, which is to make the price of their tokens better, so they reduce the supply of the existing tokens by burning them.

If it is written in the smart-contract that they are going to burn coins every month/quarter then there is no problem, but you can't trust anyone regarding this. :)

Burning tokens is another form of reducing supply and increasing value, it's not a wrongful deed if this happens, some project developers have high expectations for their token but after a while they know they don't need much token supply

the majority of many who only see the supply price and the most desirable is a small supply which they think tokens or coins will be expensive when listing in the market but if the initial supply is large then there is a burning of the supply is good and gives investors the opportunity to have a cheap price at the beginning

It is better when project has limited supply around few millions because it is more rare. Big supply tokens are mostly quick-profit schemes when team own a lot of tokebs and constantly dumping own tokens.

tokens are burned to reduce supply so that prices are maintained. With a small supply, the price of coins can be stabilized or controlled. the number of tokens reaching billions is the initial target. but if it does not reach the target and further uses. then the coin will be burned to be controlled and stabilized.

Large supply is to guarantee all users will get token on time and right quantity. Other reason is to make healthy circulation is market, if this running well liquidity will become no problems. Burned token is solution if plan doesn't work specially about target and value. Minimum supply also can be used as good indicator that developer will push more harder to increase value, so if you are bounty hunter I think you already knew that minimum supply is our favorite.

I think issuing a large amount of tokens and burning them gradually is a business strategy to attract as many as investors. In business theory, when there is high in demand and supply is limited, price increases. So will apply to cryptocurrency. Crypto projects are meant to burn their tokens just to ensure supply is limited and demand increase, thus increasing its price.

Are there possibilities that they are doing so because they want the demand for the token to increase which would also reflect to its market value? In such way, a token would have a bigger value and would have a place in the "market"? I came up with this idea since most of the coins or tokens that are from projects with large supply often result to coins with low market price especially whenever dumps happen which are not catching the interest of the investors to invest in it. Just correct me if I'm wrong. The reason of most of the projects for burning the excess supply is for the good of the project itself for a long run, but i cannot still see the essence, clearly.

may be for the development of tokens in the long run but as long as I observe this burning process does not really affect the price but more influential is the process of swap or algorithm change

Lol... It's a game plan. They work by the plan, if achieved, they get what they want and you know the next thing... ;)
A project without a product, but keeps burning is useless. Gone are the days that mere burning of tokens have positive impact on price. I have seen tokens that were burnt, yet they dumped as soon as announcement is made. The strategy most times is to see the price surge and for the community to believe more in the project.

I do not really think that any of the team from potential projects might dump their own token unless and until it is a scam project. I have seen a number of teams or advisers dumping their own tokens in order to cashout the funds but these projects end up being shit token with no value.

Actually we might not even know if the team or the advisers for such projects are real or fake. But on the other hand, team members of potential project would always try to create a demand for their tokens by not selling them but by creating huge awareness about the benefits of holding their tokens and even in this case if the tokens are burned, they created comparatively higher demand for the tokens.

it is one of their business models, how to keep the price up without spending a lot of money in the process? the answer is burning it.
when the value of the coin starts to go down, they have two options that they can do to keep the price which is buyback or decrease its total supply.
if they have a lot of money, buyback is their best option but if they do not have any money left to do it then burn is their only way to do it.

I always see that if a project makes a huge amount of tokens, I always do not understand why do they need it. this is a very difficult question, but I do not see any problem in this if their emission is limited. there will be no problems if the project team cannot increase the number of tokens created.

I often see there are several tokens with such a large inventory, and because of the burning that the total supply is even far less with an innumerable amount of initial supply, but in terms of price increases not so dramatic, and why make tokens with insufficient quantities calculated after distribution, the price of the token has increased slightly

Yes, it is indeed a kind of marketing strategy, I think they are taking quite a high risk for this kind of strategy, this could be natural if their tokens are in demand in the market. But it would be very unfortunate if in the long run their strategy did not work, but again I think the project owner has prepared anticipation about such things for their good name.

Token supply that is made only affects the price based on the agreement made by the market. Even though the initial price is the developer, there is no guarantee that the price will match the market demand. indeed there is no problem but everything must have been considered and calculated by the developer in determining the price and market of the marketed tokens.

They are for rewarding the token holders by increasing the price.
For an example, look at BNB, the exchange binance allocates a portion of it's profit to buy back BNB from market and burn them to decrease the supply quarterly.
It's a direct way to make the investors profit in proportion to the profit of the project.

sometimes it happens like this, burn tokens to keep prices stable or for other reasons. sometimes if the number of tokens is large then their platform must be proportional to the potential buy of the token, otherwise the price will go down and the developer will burn their token. and the bad thing is that the token will rarely be used for investment by investors.

I think there are lots of reason to explain why some project create large of amount of tokens. First, they want that their tokens price cheap, lots of investors like cheap tokens, they dont even care about the marketcap. Second, investors want to own lots of tokens, this sometime make they feel rich.

Burning the token will help the value of the token increase and not be inflated. Over the past 2 years I've seen many projects that have implemented the same strategy. They regularly burn their tokens on a schedule to make their tokens more scarce and prices likely to rise more easily. BNB is an example like that, and I think this is a great strategy for good projects and in the long term the price of tokens will reach many times higher than the original

Perhaps this is due to the fact that administrators just want to earn more from the sale of tokens. At heart, they rely on the idea that sales will go well and they will be able to sell a lot and quickly become billionaires. But as practice in recent years shows, this is all a hoax. Also, I believe that those who create such a number of tokens may not even understand the economy at all and come up with values ​​by eye.

You should first understand technically how tokens burning is donw. So far, I've not yet discovered how the token issuer can burn holder/investor tokens.

if they see that BNB is indeed a high ranking platform, and when the project is launched, they incur significant costs, and the price target is quite high, the marketing targets are very accurate, so that the holder / investor of BNB, gets a promising profit, and you we can see BNB has its own exchange sites, so BNB has a strong foundation to compete in the market with other cryptocurrency. And in my opinion this is a good marketing strategy.

The strategy of each project is different. Burning coins / tokens Actually this is an old trick, instead of making a lot of supplies for reasons of development and it turns out when it's time for coins / tokens to be burned. If you think carefully, deflation or burning is like no use, change is only temporary or not long, with the reason if it is not accompanied by other strategies, such as partnerships, technology updates, or optimal marketing. Burning in my opinion is legitimate, but other strategies are improved.

When mostly large number of token supply projects worthless after listing than team try to reduce token supply the only way of burn.

Azbit burn 10 billion tokens because their token price low 20x from IEO price i think so they decide to burn.
NPXSXEM, NPXS burned several billions of tokens a couple of times. Total supply is highly affected in coin value.

its cheating action to hide real value and pump it by fake moves like burning...
 ::) ::) ??? ???

total supply is very influential on the price of the token but if the token has no trader or investor. burning tokens will not affect the price but this is a strategy to attract investors, many have succeeded in using the method of burning tokens to raise the price of tokens

they need to do that so the price could easily adjusted because those tokens are not gonna do anything and just makes worse so to avoid that, they burn the coins to stabilize the price that's from what i know. also with that huge amount of supply, burning 1% of the coins could not make those coins collapsed.

Well, supply is nominal. It's not a "real" factor that underpins what is the coin's fundamentals.

For example, XRP obviously has a lot more adoption and use, as well as market cap, compared to something like Byteball. But XRP's supply is in the billions while Byteball, IIRC, isn't even in the millions. Does that make one coin/token inferior/superior to the other necessarily? I don't think so, at least.

In regards to burning, it depends on whether or not it is followed through with. If you buy into a token with the hope that some supply will be burned in the future, then it's extremely high risk.

That is a strategy from the team if they see no action for a long time. This will create buzz and attention for many investors that are also giving attention to such events like burning. And investors that are aware of what's the implications of token burning understands the importance of it that's why other altcoins that doesn't see good volume for their coin and market caps do this. Or the simplest reason why they've made billions of supply is that they've overestimated the value of their coin during creation.

There is no use of creating huger supply of token like billions if there is no usage of the token, there are no products and services involves and they do not have in their roadmap that they are going to burn, I have seen so many coins like that going down the drain because there is no usage just a pump and dump game for developers.

I do not think that having a large total supply for a new token is a good idea. Most likely, the token price is going to drop to a minimum of 1 satoshi or even lower if it is possible on exchanges. The market is still too weak to have a large supply, even if they would get burned.

That is the important point, burning tokens and unsold coins, which are used as reserves by dev for the benefit of project development, provide better transparency to investors. This can also be used to provide better price stability. Prices can go up more easily if other supporting factors are strong, one of which is a good and real product.

A large token supply in the tune of billions is not healthy for a new crypto project. Being that it will easily lose its value since the tokens are big compared to having a few million tokens.

This is a kind of strategy by some project they put a large token supply then hold a huge amount after several months or years they will burn supply to increase the price because people think burning supply will have a chance to increase the price this will serve also as a hype.

That's right with what you say, and indeed almost all token makers burn tokens, to reduce the number of tokens and to increase the price of tokens, I think those are their ways to make tokens better, and maybe that is the only way. which is chosen in increasing the quality of the token.

They are doing well for this time but it doesn't even give guarantee of they will be doing well like this for the long term. I guess the inflation will give the long term effect. I just try to take a look at doge with its hyper inflation that always produce more and more coins everyday. The price is also going down too but it's not so fast consider it must be matched with total inflation of dogecoin that will always be generating in a day.

After I looked on the supply I looked on the project potential, what can it bring to the table and why and how this trillions or billions of supply will be used, it will be on the developer's wallet waiting for the right time to unload, that would be easy money for them and they ar enot really that serious but to have tons of money with their trillions supply.

I think that is kind of strategy to attract investor. Not resist that burning token usually make developer can pump their token and who actually pump it is users who believe that it can be pumped because less supply and will make a lot of demands.  ;D

if the tokens circulating are still small, I think burning tokens will only have a momentary effect if there are no products needed by many people. when the news comes token will be burned will certainly attract investors to buy it so prices rise due to reduced supply, after the price surges there will be many investors selling it, and here the team's task is to keep growing

Because sometime agenda change and plans have not goes with their and this burning is somehow a strategy to make the community convince about the burning of funds of them to prove their seriousness but the truth is they just really fucked up and this method is an old trick already.

I will be amaze if the one their burning is on the team token and the one that circulates already. But I doubt they will do this.

burned tokens = the project most likely trying to manipulate people into buying to manipulate price
a coin should not be burned - ever
i dont see any valid reason to do that really

Large supply to sell it cheaper.
It will look like it will be an easy profit later on for the buyers.
Having 1000 tokens with just $1 is a good looking thing to buy.
You could get millions in just thousands of dollars. Then, investors will suggest a burn of token to make the price higher leaving all their coins intact.
The burnt ones are those who are not bought. A good strategy but it doesn't work in a sudden or doesn't work at all.

I have seen one already and up until now the price is just the same.

The strategy of the developers by reducing the supply means the goods are increasingly scarce and the price automatically rises maybe it's one of their techniques that has too much supply to increase the sale price of such tokens.

I personally dislike the projects which have token supply in trillions or adding billions token to their total supply, I think they just want to become rich in Quicktime and then want to leave the project a scam.

Burning token supply will make it the prices can be higher than before, its strategy from the developers to growing up investors funds. But its not until token supply be zero. I think the team must doing something that can make more people interest with the product, can make the demand in the market more higher.

That depends on what kind of tokens that have already burned by the team. If the burned tokens are coming from the circulating supply that has already bought by the team use the revenue that they are getting it from their product and that will be affecting the price of coin. If the team was burning the tokens that were coming from their pre-mined coin and that will not give even a small impact on the market. You must see the aspects behind the token burn. You can't say if any token burn will result in the rise of coin.

it does not matter, whether it will be burned or not, basically everything depends on the use of the coin, if the coin or token has no use, then all in vain,
and according to me, the coin was burned because it was to balance the demand on the coin.

The total supply doesn't really matter, what matters is how much the team holds and what the price of the token is.  Tron, for example, is a coin with a very large total supply and it grows strongly because the team holds a lot of coins, has an actual roadmap and can accomplish a lot of big goals.  Therefore, the whitepaper is still very important, we should observe the team's strategy to protect the price of coins more.

I can't agree with you, total supply matters! Supply and demand have an important relationship that determines the prices of most goods and services. Tron, ripple, and some other coins have a large supply, to ensure people that they will not just dump those coins usually in wp is stated that coins will be locked for certain time, and for what those coins can be used.
It's tricky, it's on us to believe that those coins will remain locked for a specific time period, we can believe that those coins will be used for developing, we can believe, but that is not the truth necessarily.

It will not be automatic and it takes time, prices will not rise if there is not much demand, the team must have the right strategy and time to do it. And clearly, the token or coin must have a useful function.

Yes, initially each team member behind any successful project would like to have excess amount of token supply for their project which means they would also need a lot of investors to purchase those. But at the end of each round of token sale, if the dedicated amount to the round is not sold than the team has the right to burn the excess amount of tokens.

This actually creates a limited supply of tokens which would never be generated again and it would constantly keep on rising the demand for the token as the supply would get limited. This would keep the price for the token on an ascending graph which actually would be what is expected by the team members.

Having a large supply of coins at the beginning is not a good idea anymore. I always avoid such projects. Maybe they want to create a hype about burning token, like all the unsold tokens will be burned means it can make positive vibe to the investors, and after a certain period, burning token can boost the price up! So, I have no idea what benefits technically they get except these!

Well, if a project has a large number of tokens which are not all sold than they can burn the remaining tokens. Burning the tokens is actually good for the project as it creates a scars in the amount of tokens which would rather keep on the demand increasing. Burning the tokens is actually an effective way to start a price pump in the price and hence most of the projects would now consider burning there remaining tokens to keep their project in well-demand.

I do not find anything wrong in this though because creating a larger amount of tokens might not be that bad step as in a case, there are a lot of investors than each of those tokens would be sold.

it has indeed become one of their strategies if not doing so is possible when prices are difficult to increase what will they do? with the reason of burning tokens at least it can make hype and increase prices because, in terms of burning tokens, they can do it several times until the supply is really a little and make the price more expensive. the purpose of burning this token is to deflation, then to control the amount that is circulating, and so that investors get greater incentives.

I agree with the op, if you are going to burn some tokens along the way, why creating so much in the first place, sometimes i get discourage with projects that have such huge supply with no actual use case, i think this is a point of proper consideration by the project team before creating any amount of token, btc with just 21 million supply still often get affected when a whale decided to dump his holdings,
there is no point to create huge supply then decide to burn some to help the price.

I think, this is all part of their marketing strategy. The easiest way to attract an investors interest is to make them have the vision of growing their investment by burning some of the tokens, you know, the lower the supply, the higher the demand.

You are talking about unsold tokens get burned? It is actually good if that token is going to be listed on exchanges because it will help to reduce the total supply and better price value based on ratio of demand and total supply.

Yeah, but I don't think something happening unless it is Bitcoin wherein we have seen it's potential, it's not burning but the demand increases everyday and for me it is fine and a good strategy if they will have a token burn for as long as they are doing their best to develop and constantly doing marketing to make the price grow.

You think wrong about it. Have you ever heard about demand and supply? What if the total supply decreases? Can you imagine what would happen if the %10 of btc was burned? Or consider the supply of gold in the world. Click the link to fully understand about crypto burning: https://masterthecrypto.com/coin-burning-what-is-coin-burn/

I dislike projects that have a huge token supply. It is ridiculous to me. However, I do not think that token supply still influences the performance of any crypto coin like it did around 2017

It is indeed a good strategy, however, this is the only progress they can made then after that, nothing will follow. Most previous ico's have this kind of feature. But most of them actually end up dying without even making progress in the market.

However, I see a big influence on the curio project which has a very low token supply, at the moment the price of the token cur is almost as high as $ 1 in the market, so the influence on the supply of tokens is still there, even though the role is more interested in the market.

Yes, they wont start making small supply just like bitcoin.
It will be damn expensive for every token that will be bought. I will ignore that of course.
I will just stick with bitcoin if ever it had the same number of supply.

The idea of having so much token and then a sudden hype comes out.
That is what investors will run for to buy in a blink. Yeah, the foolish ones.  ;D

usually if a project or coin that has a total supply of a small price of a coin or token can be expensive, but for Curio under $ 1, I don't know why, maybe because there is only a small circulation supply in the market

They'll only burn it to attract investors because it will apply the supply and demand, now if the project will become successful a lesser supply would mean a greater price it will become, so investors will try to investor when there's token burn because that' what they speculate will happen.

Small or huge supply, the bottom line is will the community support the coin and what's it's usage for the community and does it has a platform people can use if there is none, then it's a shitcoin whether it supplies is as huge as 1 billion or as low as 1 million, it's not the main concern of the investors.

regarding the amount of large or small supply, between 1 billion and even trillions of supplies, and as low as only 1 million, actually influences investors, because it shows how a project is going well or not, and in my opinion a supply with a maximum between 21m-50m will more profitable than supplies above 1 trillion. Because the coins / tokens that have a reasonable supply, the developer will focus more on marketing the coins. And the circulation will be more maintained.

I hate with developer where allocated token supply look very much for their team advice than how much token supply for investor, how come to make price keep higher if the developer always sell their coin and supply on market always up but never give effect to make coin keep higher price, we faced bad time after listing on exchange market and developer or advice team sell with bigger amount.

They create tokens with a large supply because it will help the token's price to be lower when starting to list at exchanges. And after a long period of operation the price will increase easily if the project works well and there are products. Think about it, if they create tokens with low supply, the price of that token will certainly be very high and no investor will dare to risk buying new altcoins at such high prices. All this is their business strategy

its not really a good idea a lot of coins already make similar to that in the past
and there will be a large sell wall in 1 satoshi and it will almost impossible to sell your coin

I agree. It doesn't make sense why there are projects that creates a very large token supply during a bounty which literally makes it a big project at a first glance due to a massive token supply and a large percentage provided for the campaign allocation to be distributed to participants which includes bounty hunters as well as potential investors. For me, it becomes a trick or strategy to attract bounty hunters getting into their project because it seems to promising and attractive being rewarded by large amount of token after the campaign. But it is not working like that because a massive amount which is not distributed as a reward or the remains from the recent token sale is being burned due to the reason that they are the excess tokens that seems to be unused. After thorough observation, it doesn't really matter how much token you have because the price still do matters that most since no matter how massive amount you have if the price is being dumped right after getting listed, it will still be a low income for you.

maybe you can see how they travel between NPXS and XDCE they have a large inventory, but there are differences between these two tokens, where NPXS makes additional supplies aimed at giving existence to the crypto world, and making NPXSEM, but after that NPXS experiences a decrease in the price drastic, and for XDCE I found a price increase, maybe this is a small example where a large token supply / increase supply to make it bigger, it will really make the price go down

Burning tokens comes as an after measure to scale token price more. Some project don't have good token metrics they don't base their supply on any substantial thing they claim the world has over a billion population when mass adoption sets in the supply will be effective.

Token supply is become my first checking with some altcoin before investing with IEO, ICO and trading with altcoin listed on market. When getting have much supply coin I will think with price on IEO and ICO matching or not with how much their supply and price selling during ICO and IEO, if looking with higher price but supply very much I think is not good investment way.

It just encourages a lot of investors to buy many tokens. It's like a trick to their eyes that it will surely be an expensive coin in the future, but it turns out it is the opposite. In fact, these project with overwhelmingly high supplies but shit value are quite common actually.

burning tokens has an effect on tokens making the price of tokens go up because a lot of the total supply of tokens increasingly makes the price of tokens cheap

I have wonder several times myself about the issues of burning. Why not supply less amount of token and don't bother about burning, why supply so much and the next thing you are thinking of is burning.

Most of these tokens were created just to capitalise on the price fo the tokens if there is a huge adoption, before what we use to have was 100 million tokens and 10% of the total circulating tokens for the team but now we see that 30% or more are being held by the team, now no demand for this tokens because they serve virtually no function on their platform and community are scared they team is likely going to dump on them so the team come to their senses to burn and eradicate that fear from the market

yes it is a way to make the price of the token stable if the total supply of the project token is too large it will affect the price while the investor only has maybe around 10-20% of the total supply and that is a great way

If you check the market we seldom see coins with trillions supply, and if there are coins with billions of supply, they are backed by a solid products and services, there is no need to create coins with trillion supply without anything unique on it, it's just a waste of time investing here.

I agree. There is no much important how big supply it is - the vision is most important