Bitcoin Forum

Recently, many projects have announced the burning of coins, but not everyone understands what this means.

This is a process by which cryptocurrency miners or developers get rid of a certain amount of tokens by sending them to addresses that are not accessible to anyone. The burning of coins is being implemented not because of the low viability of the project, but rather because of the desire of the creators of cryptocurrencies for great prospects.

Thus, the developers are trying to reduce the total number of available coins, while the created shortage affects the growth of their value.

The burning of coins can talk about the upcoming expansion of the project and a possible increase in its value. For example, after the recent announcement of a collaboration between Polygon and Newscrypto, the latter announced that they decided to burn $ 10M worth of NWC tokens this year. Consequently, in the near future, we can see a significant growth of NWC price on this news. What do you think about burning coins? Does this really affect the market value of the coins?

The sad part about this is that, "burning" became such a hyped buzzword that I see new projects starting with 1 trillion tokens and then burning 500 billion of them. Even if the coin worths literally 1 satoshi each, or even lower, that looks like they just burned millions or thousands of dollars at least. Which creates this amazing "marketing" for people who do not realize that starting with 1 trillion and burning 500 billion tokens is EXACTLY same as starting with 500 billion tokens, there is no difference.

All in all burning needs to stop being a buzzword and start being something great again. BNB is the most famous one, very very recently the other day Binance burned literally millions of dollars in a single day, that is the proof that burning could be good, they are actually making it very scarce with this method and the value goes up thanks to it, that is how burning should be done.

originally this practice was used to decrease the quantity of existing altcoins and therefore maintain or raise its price, value but currently i do not know how useful this method is given the continuous unpredictable fluctuations of all markets

I don't understand why projects refer to these methods in order to achieve stability or increase the value of their tokens/coins. In the first place, if the project is viable, the coin/token will not suffer any potential loss of value due to its supply. Hence the need for burning would not be there since the coin is doing well for itself. This method is so overused in the current altcoin market that people think that by purposely removing coins in circulation, the coin's value should rise. On paper and in theory, that should happen, but what if the coin doesn't really offer something new on the table?

This is just a marketing strategy by the project developers, they create a hell lot of tokens and if they are successful with the advertisement and the launch then they will advertise about the burning of coins, to make the investors happy because whenever there is a certain amount of coins that disappears from the circulation, the valuation increases if you are able to attract huge investors and i always view them as a marketing strategy to make things interesting.

It is actually a good thing to burn tokens.

But a lot of projects have found it as a marketing ploy just to hype their projects. Unlike those projects that have burning part of their road map, they don't have to play it as a marketing.

Since it's part of their road map, people have been aware that there's always a schedule for such projects to burn tokens as part of their token economy.

This is a market strategy for a tokens/coins to further attract more investors since the lesser the supply, the higher the chance to increase its value especially if we are talking about good projects here, for example with Binance they keep on burning and look its value now, its getting more expensive so for me this is a good strategy.

Agreed, this is a marketing scheme and nothing more, there are many coins that are doing what you are describing and people fall for this as if it was any better than starting the project with that number of coins to begin with.

Besides while this could create some increase in the price of the coin if at the end the demand remains the same the price will remain flat, they are trying to control the supply of a coin to artificially make the price of their coin to go up, so this is clear manipulation done by the developers and I do not like this at all as it shows they have nothing else up their sleeve.

The paradoxical effect of coins burning is - getting more money than you spend :)
The team of such a project destroys some of their money and should affect the market in such way so that the coin price growth followed by this action overcomes this loss.

The effect of coin or token burning is not far-fetched. It reduces the total and circulating supply of the crypto. Now according to the laws of economics, when supply is low, demand is high, and if the demand is high, then it follows that price of the goods or services is pumped. This is how it should be, though it doesn't always work like this

Yh, it is a system that I think now many projects implement because it 'sounds cool' and its real value thus is starting to get lost.

Though for serious projects like ETH or BNB token burning still means something and can lead to token value inflation as the number of tokens in circulation are reduced.

I suppose it depends on the projects you look at and whether their idea of a token burn has been on their roadmap since inception - obviously this doesn't apply much to new projects but it is a metric nonetheless.

I couldn't have said it any better. It's like ypu stole the words I'm about to say hehe.


They saw the success of the coin burning pioneering projects and they wany to follow their footsteps.Most developers today have abused this unfortunately. They intentionally inflated the initial supply so they could create a fake "shortage" later on as el kaka22 explained very well.

Don't easily fall into this marketing trap.

Burning coins has been a practice for many developers...what it makes good is they are decreasing the number of their coins, which helps to increase the market value. This strategy was something it gets the attention of the community since many projects had come to that point of burning their coins. Might this will be the last option to reach their target price. Never have seen any benefits but just the price increase, and indeed, actually, it is very effective.

Burning coins is just really good if the supply is unlimited and the minting of new coins is continous or simply having that infinite supply or shall we say that
coins does have billions of total supply then it is just good to have this kind of burning method but doesnt automatically means that price would be going up.
It all matters with the demand because there wouldnt be still no value of a coin on which demand isnt really there compared into those who do have big
total supply but the demand is high then expect that the value would really be much better.

Then why not thinking that Binance is using the same as other fake projects you have described. I read your comment by the hope to see why the burn can be a development phase.
As you explained, this burn process becomes the hype. However we should distinguish between the projects decided to burn a portion from the total supply because of determined reasons and those who program the Burn event in their roadmap before even lunching the product.

Burning coins are always associated with the hype that the coin will rise in value. It's always what we see in some community discussion of a certain coin. They applied the idea the same in Economics there wherein when there's less supply, the coin will have a good value in the future.

For example, in Peculium, they recently burned a vast amount of supply and the devs themselves said that by doing that, Peculium will increase its price but nothing happened, or maybe just early to know the results.

In the end, we have the final statement regarding this topic.

Not all coin burning is good.  Burning means taking some coins out of circulation and sending them to another address which no one has access to. As a result, coins are declining in circulation and prices are rising to increase demand. Many new coins try to take advantage of this. Burning some good old coin is good.

Broadly speaking Burn tokens can affect market prices from a coin. This might be the fastest strategy increasing prices on the market. Many projects have use this way and proved successful. But I don't really like this, Burn tokens only causes a moment of hype. After all that price will not change much. I prefer to observe a growing project because of its progress, from the project that only runs in place, but suddenly burns tokens just to make a new hype.

I think this is a marketing strategy to sound awesome, the burning technique mostly occurs on the BSC platform and has proven to be effective in getting the eyes to go there, in general burning is a good thing to reduce stock that is too large because the community is still small.

If the developer plans to burn the coins circulating in the market, it will increase the price of the existing coins, some developers are now getting used to burning coins by placing the code in the smart contracts they have created, just like when we trade on the Dex platform, some coins that already have a token burning system will reduce the number of tokens when we trade. This has been done by many developers to keep the coin price from falling easy dump

A little understanding from me for you, which is that every coin that uses this method is only to reduce the supply to make it easier for the team to manage when many fans are attracted to it, because without a lot of enthusiasts the value will remain the same and will not experience any increase.

Of course burning is a great way, proving that devs. not greedy by selling to the market, burning makes investor confidence increase because coins will decrease in stock and this will have an impact on prices that will skyrocket. many successful projects with burning tokens.

For me, burning is good both or investors and holders due to the reason that the circulating supply may decrease and by that activity the coin that is burned could possibly increase it's price since some of it's supply is burned. But some also doesn't have the effect whether the coin is burned or not, it only remains the same price as it is.

Not all successful projects have implemented burning of their tokens or coins, there are also those that do not burn but they are still as successful as others, and for BNB which has been trusted by many investors from the past until now, it is simply not because burning, but because the BNB Exchange is very well known and also provides many useful services to its users.

Coinmarketcap Burning a coin or token depends on the extra supply and if that supply is too much and the team plans in advance that the price of that token or coin will be increased in the market through Bernie in the future to replace the project as stronger in the market.  business strategy.  In this case, the investor and everyone associated with it sees the profit face.

I know that when burning tokens, developers decrease the supply. Consequently, the lower supply is, the higher price will be if demand stays the same. There is a similar situation on a stock market where buyback of shares means that the price will go up because of decreasing of a supply. So I think that price usually pump when there is news about burning of tokens.

The practice of combustion coins or tokens is indeed a problem, and it is true that it has an effect on an increase in coins from the result of the reduced supply of tokens or con who burns, but there are several things that need to be known that the combustion of coins that occur does not necapant instantly increase value From these coins, there are still other factors that must be fulfilled so that coins combustion becomes truly efficient, namely in terms of marketing and the use of the benefits of the coin itself, because of the benefits that can be felt by investors or fans, the increase that occurs will only be temporary.

simply by burning this coin will make the coin become less and more rare.
when we talk about an economic system that deals with scarce goods, it will automatically make these goods more expensive than before because of the scarcity.
as well as in coins because as it gets rarer and less and less in the auto supply the coins will be more expensive in price.
but maybe this coin burning only applies to coins that are fundamentally good like with binance with its bnb and not all coins that are burned will be better.

Currently there have been many projects on the crypto platform that have announced the burning of coins but they are very intelligently planned.The common man can not understand.They think that millions of dollars will be wasted,but if we look at this, this is a marketing ploy, the burning of coins is due to the will of the creator of cryptocurrency.This type of burning is just one part of marketing Strategy.For example, the announcement of the burning of any coin in a cryptocurrency can lead to a significant increase in its value.But I wonder why any project really needs to use this method?  In fact, the process of revolt cannot be seen to increase its value if desired.

No doubt with BNB and Ethereum.

Burning is really effective and that's why we're seeing the result of it. Aside from burning tokens as part of marketing and being used by other parts.

I'm now thinking if they'll also use by chance halving as part of their marketing too.

I never agree that burning is a good thing because on the first hand, devs got options to create less number of coins or tokens but they add burning as a feature and minting massive amount of circulating supply. In short I mean, devs should not create demand by manually decreasing the supply. Instead of that, devs must work on creating value for their coins or tokens in more progressive way.

Unfortunately major platforms are these days having "burning" feature by default. This must be another thing which are kind of manipulation to lure naive investors. I am out against all such coins/tokens.

The Binance team holds 40% of the coins which is over 80 million and the next 10% in the hands of seed investors and the rest they sold to the public, now what is the point if they keep on burning the coins and make them valuable. They should release the coins they are holding and try to make the market more decentralized rather than holding majority of the stakes.

The project being carried out is not based on achieving the stability of the token value, so that the loss of value due to supply requires burning, although this condition has not actually been carried out, this partek is carried out to reduce the number of existing altcoins, so that it is quite easy for them to increase the price. this is almost done by other coins, but not all of them succeed in the specified target, and I don't really respect and believe in this pattern.

Burning coins necessarily affects the price, but it may not happen immediately, but after a certain period. But a lot depends on what percentage will be burned. If this is a small percentage of the Circulating Supply, then the market may not notice this and, accordingly, the price will not change.

Yep. Burning does really affects coins' value as the supply is being cut down. Again, it falls under the law of demand and supply. More supply, could lead to lower price and vice versa. However if there's no demand, nothing will happen, probably would lower the price gradually.

good for the product to be able to control the price at the point the team want ,reduce supply to keep it under control making it easier for traders or investors to push prices higher than before and so far this has been very helpful ,we can see together also special in bnb the price has increased even further better

Why does the project need to burn in the first place I see project tagging these burns words and I think to myself Why not just start with lower coins instead Look I dont think burning is not a bad mechanism I just see it been misused in lots of project.. If its necessary like ETH burn Luna burn or cake then by all means burn ahead But shitcoin with shitburn is more like continuation to been shitty Watch out

It does, it brings impacts to a coin value. There are already many developers burning their coins, then the price of the coins can increase instantly in the market. In theory, burning means decreasing the total supply. It makes the number of coins become less than before. In this situation, the price of the coin can be higher since the number of the coin be more limited than before. You must know the economic principle, right? When the stuff becomes rare, the value to be more expensive.

Good projects should indeed have a limited supply and a burning coins plan must be carried out, in order to make the value of the coins increase.
Therefore, usually if there are projects that provide a schedule for burning coins, investors will immediately buy the coins, because usually the price
will rise instantly and this is an opportunity to make a profit. This method of burning coins is done by developers to attract investors, and has proven
to be effective. But it depends on the project too, if shitcoins are planning to burn their coins, it still doesn't make the shitcoins worth buying.
So we as investors still have to do research and analysis to choose coins that are suitable for investment.

Since most crypto enthusiasts associate and believe burning coins will trigger the price increase of a certain coin, we can conclude that it will affect its market value.

Technically, it should as supply and demand play a big role but in crypto, without hype and popularity, burning coins are not enough to trigger the pump.

As many have said that burning a coin could be good for a project, it can create an upward pull or increasing effect for the price of that coin in the crypto market since aome of it burned or lessen it's circulating supply. Buring coin projects can be a good for a long term investments, burning coins could also incentivizing traders and investors, also it could maintain the price peg of stable coins.

By burning it will reduce the stock and of course will make the price increase, this is a good strategy to convince users and proven effective, although burning but it takes a lot of money to burn, like I've done in some tokens but after burning then get a bonus from devs.

Burning coins are used as an advertising campaign adopted by most projects. IMO, burning coins will help that coin avoid inflation, the coin will be more stable and sustainable after each coin burn cycle takes place. In addition, the burning of coins will cause the supply to be limited and the demand for holdings to increase causing the coin value to increase.

My view is about simple burning for either NWC coins/tokens or others. If the demand is increasing but the supply of coins/tokens is getting limited, you can imagine what will happen in the future and this close example is here:  https://cryptopotato.com/binance-coin-approaches-ath-as-14th-bnb-burn-to-happen-in -48-hours/ I haven't felt it yet, but when it's close to 100 million coins, it's just the same with NWC.

Burning is a Very effective system in crypto market, Developer always burned their coin when they understand that Their coin always will undervalued for their huge supply, then they decided about burning, and also have another way for token burning. 

Actually, the benefits of burning tokens/coins are good because they can keep prices stable and more valuable. But sometimes there are also projects that do token burning but don't have much effect on the token itself, it could happen because there are still a lot of circulating tokens, meaning that it doesn't make the token feel scarce as the main purpose of burning tokens is to remove the token completely from circulation and can't be used anymore.

This is a technique to reduce stock so that the price will go up, usually this is for coins or tokens that have a large amount, one project that I know is actively burning 1 billion per day is Goma Finance is a project that has burned more than 88% of the stock and this is effective for make investors more trust with devs long term plans.

The practice of Coin Burning is common in the crypto industry and is quite simple to implement. Many projects use coin burning to preserve their assets supply and demand ratio. Reducing the total volume of coins, theoretically, leads to their value increase, provided that current demand indicators are maintained.

Well, yes, burning is good, and it does have some good effect in the price of the coin immediately or later in the future, as it reduces inflation and at the same time increases scarcity.
But like a member here already said, some project developers, most especially in the meme coin trend, use the act of burning to fool many ignorant investors into investing or buying into a the project when normally, they shouldnt have, like the scenario a member shared here where a team launch a project with 1 trillion tokens, and burn 500 billion tokens, causing noobs to start buying into the project when this kind of burn isnt really a burn, I've come across this kind of projects severally, and this doesn't say good about such a project at all.

This kind of coin burning is very necessary for coins that have a lot of inventory, because by reducing the existing supply, it is hoped that the coin will not experience inflation and can stabilize the value of a coin, and this is also usually used as a powerful marketing strategy to pump up the value of coins that are sold. burned.

burning some coins for a project is indeed a pretty good thing to do, in addition to increasing the marketability of the burned coins it is also good for pumping coins to be healthier and greener.
because basically a system like this is still the same as the previous systems with the hope that when the supply of goods or coins that are burned is getting less, the price applied will be even more expensive because the increased need is inversely proportional to the scarcity of goods.
but not all projects that stipulate something like this can run well because again, of course, investors see progress in both the whitepaper and roadmap as a reference.
If the progress for the future is good, of course, burning coins will be very useful, but when the progress is not good, burning coins will be useless.

for now your words are true but of course with the coin burn I think the use will still be there but it would be better if they let go of the coins they hold I think this will be better because indeed with this it is indirectly released the coins they hold then it is not impossible that binance will become more decentralized as you say.

How does burning a multichain coin looks like?
will they take a portion from all the chains the project appear on?
Asides the announcement of the burning of unsold token before launch, I try to distance myself from projects with high numbered coins and bad tokenomics. Unnecessary large reserve for team is suspicious

There are several ways in the process of burning coins, the ways are varied and determined. Some developers, will use one step burning after the ICO is over to burn unsold coins from circulation.

Then, there are also those who prefer to do it in several stages. Just like binance which does the coin burning process every three months, this burning is part of a commitment to reach 100 million BNB which will later be burned.

Burning tokens or coins aims to reduce the circulation of tokens on the exchange, so that price increases can be done easily, but if they can't recruit new investors who will pump up the price of coins, then burning coins has no effect on the price, in which case it would be nice if they stake. Staking can reduce the circulation of tokens on the exchange, and profits are also earned by token holders, the total supply is fixed.

Burning is a good way to get more attention from investors nowadays, because its like a big event wherein there's always a good improvement afterwards. So its not surprising some developers trying to do the same way when they noticed that the project didn't improve more or there are some factors that trying to make their project stagnant. It's always the best way for them which is very effective.

That is, the current burning is more of a diversion to investors, because after the burning there will be good improvements afterwards, whether the construction of this kind of project can be successful on a general scale, considering that many projects that are present are also doing the same thing, and maybe they have other ways to make the project look effective, it doesn't just depend on the burning session, I think if you stick to one point, then everything else will be ignored.

this is more rational than burning when the coin is not developing, although burning is considered important for the development of coins in the future, the coin burning process is based on a study or analysis of the pre-sale circulation, usually they do it when the ICO has been completed and delete unsold coins, or as you say using the burning process every three months after going through the existing mechanism.

Regardless of that and what you said, each team will also see how the interest in their coins is every year, because if the demand continues to grow, then the coin burning will also not be carried out immediately even though it has been set in the plan in order to maintain the basic value of their coins.

I see that burning coins is just an effort to attract the public's attention so that they are interested in investing in these coins. although there is no guarantee that the coin will be successful or anything but in my opinion it is only for a marketing strategy and in the future it will not have any effect

What the fuck why recruit why not just tell them to join, looks better than recruits , lmao ..
Schemes such as pump likely to intensify because they are unregulated. The portion of the coins that is being burnt can be verified on the blockchain. These coins are sent to a wallet to which no one has access.

I dont get the whole idea behind burning tokens. Some projects issue billions or trillions of tokens and announce they have burned several millions after some time. Not a big achievement imo. Or the token is very, very cheap and they burb a great part of supply. That does not change a lot. What was cheap, stays cheap. Some projects put too much attention on burbing. Like it is a miracle. But in general burb barely affecte the price.

Crypto creators burn the coins in an attempt to increase the value of the coins that remain in circulation. It is not very dissimilar to what happens in the realm of Oil. If the price of a barrel of crude oil drops because there is a glut in the supply and the demand is not commensurately high, then the oil-producing nations reduce the supply so the prices go back up again. The same dynamic of supply and demand is at play behind the process of coin burning. 8)

I see current projects with a value they offer of 1 trillion will burn 50% after selling 50% and they will burn that 50% when they sell the coins they sell first. looks like this is some form of inflated value that will be inflated to hit some investors. Because they always think that if there is a plan to burn those coins in the future, the coin price will definitely increase significantly. This approach is also one of the marketing tactics of the project that makes investors happy because every time the coin disappears from circulation, the value increases, this is the way of many works and projects. this doesn't surprise me because these are the ways many projects are using these days.

Generally, the burning of coins is only to reduce the supply, regardless of whether the price will go up or down because it has nothing to do with anything although the effect can be very clear, namely to a better price when the coin continues to be hunted by everyone in the market.

When project's team decide that they want to increase market value of their token, then they start burning system. But only burning is not effective for increasing price, need active community and hard working team management.     

Exactly. This is nothing more than a marketing scheme by developers to attract investors into their project. It's not about burning tokens, but rather about providing real use cases for the mainstream world. One thing I'd like to mention is that burning tokens doesn't guarantee it's going to become much more valuable in the long run. That depends whenever the supply of the token in question is in fact limited, or not. Added scarcity is what guarantee's a cryptocurrency or token's value on the market. The more coins there are in circulation, the less valuable it'll be.

Coins like BNB, and now ETH, are burning their supply in order to become scarcer over time. This is a good thing because it increases demand for these crypto assets at a fast pace. But not every coin that burns its supply will turn out to be successful in the long run. It's all a matter of providing utility to people in the mainstream world. As long as projects are able to accomplish that, they'll last for a very long time. Just my thoughts ;D

Burning coins is the best way to reduce the amount of stock that is too much, of course this will make the price skyrocket, now many projects make a lot of tokens and if they don't sell then the rest of the coins will be burned so as to convince investors so that there is no dump that makes the coin die or frozen exchanges.

Based on my little experience and project that have I earn their coin, burning coin from my perspective, increase the value of the coin, Practical I own like two coin that do engage in burning, when ever the project announced burning the value goes beyond moon, I.e aiming mars. So burning coin increase the value of the coin.

We have that same thought before, I really don't think that was helpful to the project but now, it seems a way to boost their price and that it looks beneficial to everyone. This process has been known now, many projects have a huge market cap trying to uplift their price and they do the burning of thousands of tokens, in fact, the known Binance Coin had been doing this twice(if I'm not mistaken).
It is very common practice this time but if the project itself doesn't have any use-cased, that I think still useless.

Tokenomics is a very complicated and experimental issue. Burning could be kind of an artificial way to correct some trend, a marketing trick, etc.

I don't like the burning, it's not elegant, but I can't say that is bad, it depends on the case.

Cheers

By burning tokens, projects can attract investors to enter the project because hype burn tokens are usually very much in demand so they can get large volumes with little circulation because tokens are burned with the hope that the price will be good in the future, but if the project is announced there will be token burn early, so it's best to consider holding that tokens.

But that is the thing, by burning coins the developers are reducing the supply but this has no effect on the demand, now some may expect that the reduction in the supply could be enough to make the price of the coin to go up as the demand remains the same, but we must understand that things are not so straightforward.

If the amount of coins in an exchange does not change and the demand does not change either even if half of the supply is burned then the price of the coin will remain the same, so this shows that many times when developers announce something like this they are trying to create hype and the expectation the price will go up, so to me it is just another way to try to manipulate the market to their advantage.

Supply/demand mechanism says that if the supply gets shorted, then the demand could stay the same and have no absolutely change at all in the long run as well.

I personally believe that if it was done in any other way then it could have been fine. However the problem with the burning tokens is the fact that the burning is not done to the tokens that we see on the market anyway, which means that it is not something that is a "supply" for us, sure it changes the number on the data pages but the reality is that what do we even get rid of?

Tokens at the hands of the project owners, that money wasn't there to be bought by anyone anyway. Like BNB that binance burns, was that on the market? Was it traded? It wasn't, it was already in their treasury waiting to get burned. So normally if you make the supply lower, then demand doesn't need to change, but here they don't lower the supply at all.

Many people say that burning coins is good because the total supply of coins will decrease so that the coins are not widely circulated in various exchanges, on the other hand the demand or buyers of these coins increases so that there is a shortage of coins and causes the price of these coins to be very expensive.

Burning coins is a classic way, developers always doing that for marketing plans, which is nothing but to increase the hype of investors and think this is an opportunity to increase the value of the coin on the exchange market by considering max supply and supply circulation. is this good? I believe for long term yes, but for short term it's just a temporary pump because of the hype during the event

Burning coins is good for old top coins. This reduces the total supply of tokens and increases the price.  But burning a new coin is not very effective. Because they have huge total supply. As a result, burning a few coins can have no effect on the total supply and price.

This is exactly my point, the developers could burn out 90% of the supply and the price could remain unaffected as those were coins that were not being traded anyway and were not part of the supply on the exchanges being bought and sold.

The only way for this to produce an increase in the price is if people see this as a positive news and then begin to buy more of the coin with the hopes it goes up in value, and as the demand increases and the supply at the exchanges remains the same then an increase in the price happens, mostly because of hype of course.

Yes, I would not say that only recently, it was from the very beginning of smart contracts.The same binance burns tokens on a quarterly basis and everyone is used to it.This is good in all aspects, since the emission is reduced and in the future there may be a shortage,and this is only for a hand to everyone who invests for a long period.

Even burning is good for many projects but still we have to understand all this is also creating some hype which is not good because peoples not understanding this all and investing in hype which still not beneficial for them. Burning could be helpful in only better use case of projects because if your use case is still not good then surely this burning is also not going to have any impact on this project, it is just because of shilling and having some short term benefit which is never been good idea.

As we already have some good examples from different members, burning could be useful in only case you are doing this all by demand and supply but if you already have some very big supply then this burning could be helpful until you reach on your better demand.

I think burning these coins is a trick to raise the value. The development team deliberately allocates coins in large quantities for the purpose. It could be said that this is not a healthy system. If the coin looks good then even with its value then it will grow because of the ecosystem, not because of burning.

At a certain point, the team has a desire to stop the unlimited issue of coins in order to create a shortage of supply in the market. Such decisions will definitely lead to an increase in the price of the coin. This is exactly what we are seeing with the ETH coin, in which part of the commission after the London fork is burned.

Wrong. Everyone is well aware of this and probably those who joined this crypto space last week might not be aware of this. These days, coins and tokens which are trying to create a fake hype out of burning process are not getting pumped because you cannot keep cheating people with empty promises forever. Burning might have worked for some time but I am sure it won't here after (at least for new projects).

If you are planning to choose your investments based on the roadmap which is having lots of scheduled burning process then probably you may burn your fingers by touching them :o.

A good project never needs any such non-developmental procedures to create artificial demand. Burning must be one of non-developmental activity but unfortunately even binance is doing it time to time, not sure why they need it considering their reputation and userbase.

I think burning is not the only reason Ethereum is getting more and more money fuelled into it. There's the combination of improved investors' sentiment and the fact that we are getting ever closer to v2.0 and as we know people like to be early speculators.

Ethereum has been popular for a long time and because it is ranked the number 2 coin, when people feel optimistic about the future of crypto will naturally invest in ETH. From what I've seen the burn itself didn't seem to have had that positive impact on fees like many anticipated but it is still a work in progress I guess

I agree with what you said, but Burning coins is one of the best ways to increase the quality and quantity of tokens, of course tokens that have a limited supply have a greater chance than tokens that have an abundant supply, the most obvious example is BTC, with the amount  a little supply makes the price of BTC rise very high, as well as ETH after several burns, the price can also skyrocket.

Many aspects affect the value of crypto, one of which is the burn system. Staking, and trading competition also makes the coin price increase. Staking can reduce the circulation of crypto on the exchange, and trading competition makes people vying to buy in hopes of getting bonuses from their trading results. Apart from that, certain information can also increase or decrease the price of crypto. Suppose Elon Musk will invest in Bitcoin as much as $1 million. This kind of information can increase the price of Bitcoin. Likewise, negative information circulating in the community can also make crypto prices drop.

Lol, nowadays those projects are burning tokens so that people think that this will cause the price to increase massively and they will end up FOMOing causing the price to pump. A shit project (we can see a lot of meme projects) comes up, they start with a huge supply, they start creating a hype, the cause the price to go up and then when people start losing interest, the developers decide to play their trump card, burn the coins. And more people start investing again hoping that the price will go up after the burn.
How does burning tokens increases the quality of the project?

I think the solution NEAR protocol is doing is the best option, burning tokens like what Ethereum is doing with gas fees is the second best option. NEAR gives gas fees to the DApp developer. This helps pay for server costs on platforms like Ref Finance and Mintbase.

The primary objective of coin burn is to regulate the supply and thereby stabilize the price. The process is similar to demonetization of currency or buy-back of shares. When the developers/miners burn the coins, the number of coins available in the digital currency market reduces.

It is marketing strategy by the project developers, they create a hell lot of tokens and if they are successful with the advertisement and the launch then they will advertise about the burning of coins, to make the investors happy because whenever there is a certain amount of coins that disappears from the circulation, the valuation increases if you are able to attract huge investors and i always view them as a marketing strategy to make things interesting. ;)

If it's only for the purpose of reducing the supply of supplies, it does look good, but it would be better if the decreasing supply can also increase the demand so that it can greatly affect the price too, but if the demand is still the same as before, then the effect on the price will not be would be too big.

It pretty much depends on demand. Even if you burn 80% of the total supply but no one is buying the remaining supply to do something useful with it the coin would still be worthless. Besides, I really don't like the idea of deliberately "burning coins" that are not bad yet, just to increase their price. I think a better mechanism should be determined by rules, could be automatic and decentralized. .. You could have rules that automatically increase or reduce supply if demand is too high or too low. This should also help the price movements to be sustainable and moderate.
It should not be easy for developers to wakeup one day and decide to burn public coins. I'm not sure I can use such coin unless it's done through strong public consensus

Anyone can create a token and burn a portion of it.

This doesn't create value for the token. People are confusing utility with scarcity in my opinion.

I could create a super rare token with a circulating supply of 1 token forever. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't have any real usage, then it's not going to have intrinsic value at all.

When burning is not always accompanied by an increase in demand and things like this I think have often happened,
and what you say is also true it won't have a big effect on the price,
but at least when we burn we have hope for the price

A better hope after being burned also still depends on two things, first on market conditions and the second is on the performance of the team who must really be able to show accurate evidence about the burning so that everyone's interest can be focused on the token or coin that is being burned.

Burning is common practice..even though I'm a newbie, I know it's only shotcoin and ico..but my favorite tokens like BNB regularly burn every 3 months to get the best value for this bnb holder..even though prof of burn is not the same as prof of fork but in line with prof of stake .. even though we are foreign and worried about the burning process I think it is safe for tokens with strong fundamentals.. while waiting for the burning process brother usually always monitors charts or analyzes other coins / tokens?

I think this is another strategy to promote a project and draw people concentration! If any new project is good, then they don't need to announcement of burning their coins! but they did cause they know, due to such news,, people will buy their coins crazily and thus project volume, price and liquidity automatically increase even before burning has done! Cause we all know what will happen after burning a portion of any coin!

I totally agree with what you said in terms of, I too believe that this is the new marketing strategy for the cryptocurrency Projects. I have always thought about it too, why don't they just print/mint the specific number of coins/tokens that the projects needs and roll from there, but I soon realized that this is the new marketing tool because those coins/token burned are actually valued based on the current price of the project and at the end of the day, they make the investors see that they are reducing $x total amount and making the project more valuable.  

burning coins is a good thing because by burning coins it will reduce the total supply of the coins while the demand remains
it will make the price rise due to limited supply
this is just a simple economic theory in sales

A basic and rudimentary theory in economic books but the effectiveness in practice is remarkable, almost any project where practicing with this theory can change their whole fate in a short time, the most typical is binance's BNB, working very hard in burning coins and every time the burn message is displayed, BNB is constantly being refined to become a more expensive product. However, to learn how to reduce the supply without going negative and forcing users, developers will need to implement more features to get their coins back, the wall of surrender is located at this point

Burning greatly affects market prices into a good trend. This method has been used for a long time. It proved to be very good to make the project more qualified and rare. Because the supply of the whole will be reduced and the tokens obtained are increasingly rare. Burning is well liked by the community and traders because prices always go up after burning occurs.

Not all tokens whose supply gets burned, usually increase in price. Only those with high demand will be able to rise all the way to the moon. Coin burning is a tactic used by developers in order to attract investors into their project. It's no wonder how BNB became extremely valuable within just a few years since its creation. The cryptocurrency constantly burns its supply in order to remain as scarce as possible.

Ultimately, it's all about usability. As long as the coin you're investing into is useful, you can rest assured it'll last a lifetime. Just because a coin is burning its supply doesn't mean it's going to be successful. Play the game right, and you'll be on a road towards non-stop financial success. Just my thoughts ;D

Burning coins may be a powerful way to increase the price of certain coins where the coins you have are decreasing in supply.
this method is very effective I think in increasing the price of one coin

This is a good example of what happened to BNB. Developers burn existing coins for the purpose of paying service fees. There have even been several times the burning of BNB coins. As a result, this coin increases and is quite stable. with the loss of coins from the market or circulation, or increasingly rare and limited. This will make the price of the coin increase.

yes, especially burning coins is one of the marketing strategies to increase the value of coins and the market for investors who are increasingly interested. BNB is a leading platform that has the idea of burning coin that is what makes the value of BNB increase rapidly

Generally scarcity of commodities give rise to inflation so if developers burn their coin to attain a high value for their coins then it's a nice prospect but recently the process is been overhyped by desperate developers and not all of those coin have attained a reasonable price value. BNB is just one of such projects and this has caused a skyrocket in the price value

Burning is a hype word these days which has lost both its meaning and its use. What stops the project from initially starting out with the required tokens, less the burned ones? Investors should check it out

If basically burning tokens is to reduce circulation in the market so that it can cause a scarcity of the token and can make the price of the token increase, but if the trading volume on the token is high then burning tokens will greatly affect the price development of the token. market due to high demand and scarce tokens but if the trading volume on tokens is small I don't think it will have a big impact on its price development.

Burning of coin is really a good idea provided that the developers purpose of doing it is achieved probably to increase the price of that coin just like the periodically burning of BNB by it developers, however some other developers might announce the burning their coin just to hype invariably to decieve or trick investors whereas the said coin has not been well managed by their developers consequently after investing in it, there wouldn't be any impact made by such investment.

That is very right. Burning is good to alleviate the price of the coin but that is if there is really happening on the project.
But if it is only done without developing the coin itself and just relying on the possible increase because of the idea of burning, it will be worthless.
You can easily see the progress of the project, by looking at how they are publishing their progress or accomplishments.
A lot are attracting the interest of investors by stating that they will burn half the supply, but take note of their developments.

It's not necessarily a good thing.

In fact, if a project needs to burn coins to gain traction, they probably don't have a lot to offer.

Beware of these projects because right now "burning" is a buzzword just as "DeFi" or "NFTs". Just like the 2017 ICO craze, highly hyped projects will likely suffer the same fate sooner or later.

Coinmarketcap Burning a coin or token depends on the extra supply and if that supply is too much and the team plans in advance that the price of that token or coin will be increased in the market through Bernie in the future to replace the project as stronger in the market.  business strategy.  In this case, the investor and everyone associated with it sees the profit face.

Burning is proof that the team wants to increase prices instantly, if waiting for buyers is difficult then the popular way right now is to burn, but we have to be careful because many projects can also increase stock so that burning looks useless.

This comes as a surprise to me, I wasn't aware that there are projects that burn crypto coins on purpose. This is a bit crazy, because supply shortage will drive the price upwards but usually not if it's artificially created. How do we really know that the coins are not accessible anymore? Maybe they just wait for higher prices to dumb their coins. A limitation in the total amount of a crypto coin is a good thing, like we are seeing with bitcoins. But if the creators of a projected wanted such supply limits, why wasn't the coin created in such a way. Maybe I am to critical, but I would very cautious to buy more coins if the are being burnt.

For a coin, investors and holders's mind is important. If burn coin made them believe a coin will be increased, and then it is something good. Because if people believe less supply means more demands, they wouldn't want to miss the chance and then buy the tokens too. It can cause pump for a coin. But people really should know this because i read from social media that there are people who think to "burn"  coin that they bought, and don't know if they gonna lose the coin. Only developers who must burn their tokens and not us investors or holders.

I still remember the time where the word "burning" was being used by these new projects (mostly memecoins and shitcoins) just to attract investors.
They will try to create a coin which has a very huge supply (mostly in trillions) and then every transaction, they will burn a certain percentage of the total supply. Most of them didn't state when the burning ends so most likely, those projects will end up at 0 supply because burning is limitless which is kinda funny.

Well, its not about the burning mechanism of the coin. It depends on the usage of the coin. I remember BNB where they are making quarterly burning of BNB coin until the supply comes down to 100 million coins only. This is a good thing for BNB since it increases the supply of it and aside from that, they have a very huge users in their exchanges which makes them very popular unlike those new projects that are just attaching the word "burn" just to gain clout.

Burning affects the price of coins only if there are many holders of it. Its kinda useless if a new project will have a burn mechanism and then there are only few people that are using that coin.

The  burn of coins is fair truly great in the event that the supply is boundless and the stamping of unused coins is continous or basically having that unbounded supply or might we say that coins does have billions of add up to supply at that point it is fair great to have this kind of burning strategy but doesnt naturally implies that cost would be going up. It all things with the request since there wouldnt be still no esteem of a coin on which request isnt truly there compared into those who do have big total supply but the request is tall at that point anticipate that the esteem would truly be great.

burning, I think, does not play a special role to a project that is not successful and not promising, there are many projects with a huge number of coins in circulation, which have trading volumes of billions of dollars per day, such as shiba inu, doge.

The thing is that I don’t get why all these projects will start a huge amount of coins, knowing very well that they would end up burning almost half of the coins later. What’s the need for all that? Isn’t it all an unnecessary process? Since they know that they are going to end burning almost half of the coins later on, it would be best that they just start up with a smaller or the exact amount that they would prefer, than starting with a huge amount and then burning them later on.

I just don’t see the need for all that. This is not something that I would see frequently before, but now it has become a trend that almost every new project now wants to follow the trend.

The primary objective of coin burn is to regulate the supply and thereby stabilize the price, additionally, by reducing the circulating supply of a portion of the circulation so the number of transactions gets equally reduced. In a nutshell, a reduction in volume lowers the chances of spam attack which leaves enough bandwidth for health transaction count on the network.

Burning Coin mean reduced some % amount from.his supply. Which mean its supply become decreasing which is really for any project because by doing this the price of his project must be pump because we know that when demand is huge and supply is small the price will be bullish and when burning of any coin done his supply has reduced while demand become increase so that the reason that burning coin is good for any project

In fact, the coin burning system is a very good thing and is quite feasible to do to make investors interested in coins that will indeed be burned because this can indirectly be profitable.
but for now the coin burning system has become something commonplace and it seems that almost all altcoins that really can't compete and that includes memecoin always use things like this to attract fans.
actually it would be great if coin burning was done but on the other hand with things like memecoin and shitcoin doing things like this indirectly made coin burning not special anymore

That's how it should be.

But, do you know that not all projects that do the burning of their supply aren't pumping in prices? There are many of them that are not seeing the effect as expected.

It is why many investors are not also falling for the burning for uncommon projects.

Not all burning events would really be that relevant or would give out some significant effect because it would all matter on the demand.

When supply decreases out but the demand is still there then you would really be expecting those climbing of prices but  not an assurance

because it will also vary of the said burning event whether its really that interesting or not because not all investors would really be ending
up on having positive approach.

Well explained @hazak  8) but what I don't understand is why projects have a very large pool of coins in the first place...Do the devs overvalue these projects & expect to sell all these coins and also get the green light to go with inflated numbers of tokens ??? .Its only when the sale doesn't go as planned do they resort to balance the figures, because the issued tokens compared to the unissued is way below their target and burning some allows for value addition to existing coins and also stimulates demand around the crypto users.

Might over calculated or they think that more tokens give them more demand and profit. They likely underestimate the market competition as they expect too much for their project.

Now, burning tokens have made sense as it become a strategy to make their price moves up. It becomes a common practice for those who have a huge market cap. Eventually, it works but I don't know if this is a sustainable strategy or not? maybe they look into some projects who did this first and it works but can't be sure if this works to worthless projects.

Well perhaps it is just because that project is pure hype and controlled by the team behind that project. Because burning totally decreased the supply and it means there is a possibility that the price goes up and if still controlled by them, the price could be the same. Burning is good and I saw a lot of projects that burned tokens and after a month the price was increased rapidly. But it is indeed right --we did not know which project is being honest to their investors.

It's just that investors aren't really interested.

A project that token burns yet there's not that much attention from the investors, they won't succeed even if they keep on burning.

Investors who are being wise won't just bite to those marketing and events about burning of their tokens.

Burning or swapping coins were common ways and had been done before so that team could conduct their project perfectly. But right now so many projects have announced they'll burn their token! Some of those project may have proper reason but most of those have no need but want to make highlighting their project! Even some project don't burn their coins after announcement but pump their coin by using such hype strategy. 

In every single new project first of all investors will focus for the token supply if It seems small cap coins when they will expected good price when it live on the exchanges, I think it’s a common perception. After burning some projects will increase but not at all. Even a lot of big projects burning token to increase significant growth. Though price isn’t control by team but they just try to increase the price in this way.

for now it seems that burning coins is one of the routines of a coin that is most commonly done by almost all developers who do the projects they run.

and things like this now seem to have been misused by some bad people to cheat with the lure of burning coins then everything will be good even though it's just a trick to get people into the trap.
a lot of meme coin or shitcoin implement this now.
and from here we have to be able to sort out a project even though they do the same thing but their intentions are different

Its probably after seeing bnb burning strategy, now almost each and every project doing this common practice without knowing what they are doing but try to follow bnb'r footsteps.
Yeah a good people always gives regular update and care about their users. Shit project just create burning & some others hype, pump and then downfall. That's the reason, we see meme coins fly as a while then no news about those after hype end

I think such a process of "Burning" coins is an ice-cold attempt to save and without tokoo not a successful project of the developers. I don’t remember all such actions being crowned with success in any project. In general, if I hear that there is a "liquefaction" of coins, I immediately regard this project as a drowning man.

This can be explained very easily, by burning you raise the value of the rest with the remaining liquidity. This works in projects where the emission is large, and the general group of the main holders does not give in to panic, then a lot of attention can be attracted in this way, and confidence in the project can be increased.

Burning is of course to match stock with demand, as we know that many projects provide large stocks up to 21 digits, and they burn more than 50%, of course this is a good thing to make prices go up and an easy way to kill zero.

Reducing the total amount of existing supply is the burn that is most favored by the community. Sending a number of tokens by dev to the dead adress. Like 0x0000. Burn in my opinion, is an event that is very liked by the community as well as traders. Very influential in the rise of the coin. Usually coins can go up more than 20% with news burn

The intention of the Burning that is carried out seems to reduce the supply of Crypto, by burning the coins will decrease in circulation, resulting in an increase in prices in the future, meaning that with the reduction of coins due to burning, it will affect the growth of its value for the better. this is the purpose of doing it.

This strategy is also very attractive to investors, however, there are some projects that do not burn their coins and yet investors are still investing. it means, the quality of the project does not base on burning its supply only, it's more on how the team will develop the project to improve, which means, we have to be careful in choosing an investment, don't invest right away if we read the words "burning of supply/coins" as it doesn't right away tells a pump of price.

This is Good because this is just like the law of supply and demand if the developer of a coin burned certain amount of their supply it will probably decrease the supply so it will difinitely increase the value of their coin base on the money they get from the investors because for me this is the best thing to do to make the project more stable in the market and will not go to trash as other project become.

If the coin burning technique aims purely to reduce the stock then this is good, but we have to be careful because many projects can also increase the stock so that burning coins is useless, but in general the coin burning technique is very good for increasing investor confidence because they don't worry if the price goes up so they sell slowly so that the price of the coin continues to fall.

The burning of coins aims to make the assets of a project increasingly scarce. Usually because the initial total supply is too much of its use in the ecosystem then the best solution is to burn some of the total supply. Burning is very proven since long ago event burn becomes an event that is very preferred by investors and traders.

Always a decrease in total supply increases the value of any coin. This is the general rule. And if those people destroy some of them, the direct response will cost someone. So when a good project destroys its own high value, its value is seen to increase dramatically. This means that when everyone destroys, their value increases. The ritual of destruction can be considered good.

yes it is true, not all coins that are burned will increase the price, for example GOMA FINANCE, some time ago I was interested in buying it because there was an announcement in the Goma telgaram group that they would burn 85% of their tokens from the supply amount. Until now, Goma Finance has not had any price increase after they burned it. sometimes strategies like this can't be trusted too

The amount of stock that is too much is suspected to be used to get maximum profit, the burning technique has proven to be effective in convincing holders so that they don't panic when they see the price drop, they will patiently wait because the dump that happened was not because of the devs. but market facts.

Burn coins permanently out of circulation, then it can increase the value of the remaining coins that are still in circulation. As people's needs increase, the supply of coins is limited so the price offered can increase to get the coins.

We know that the Burning process actually removes tokens permanently. It's not too bad if the basic/project is clear, even though it's done outside the developer's policy to withdraw to a special account, so that deflation occurs

this supports the equation even more than its position to go higher. this may be a strategy. i'm not so sure about all the hype because a price that goes up too fast will reverse to form a balanced REVERSAL. this doesn't have to happen from a bearish condition

Burning is now one of the Crucial parts among all coins. I researched many coins price increase so high When burning news come out through twitter. Specially Binance and top coins price goes high with news. With burning all extra coins fund Removed permanently. Its used for decreasing the total supply.
All meme coins use this burn system to make hype in market and many coin Are success due to big burning mechanism.

This is not necessary that the price will boost after burning a certain amount of tokens/coins by project developers like some fellow members said here it's all just a market strategy to create hype about the coin and I am totally agree with them although there are some quality coins for example bnb which is leaving a strong impact after burning a certain amount quarterly that's because the bnb developers have explained it with reasonable reasons long time ago but these days many developers want to burn coin without reasons because they think it will boost the price, this is absolutely a misunderstanding of them.

Every crypto asset certainly has different characteristics and uses, friends, therefore cryptocurrencies recognize coin categorization based on their use value. However, it should be understood that crypto is an investment that offers high returns and risks. By understanding the type of investment that is chosen properly, starting from the benefits of its function, advantages to disadvantages, then you can carry out any investment more safely and comfortably.

Yes mostly new project coins always burn their coins for price increasing, and the investors are happy with that. Burning without purpose and only for sudden price increase is really have a bad impact for the project in the long run. These kind of projects are mostly just a money game projects that the investors want to make a quick profit as well as the owner of the project.

When digital coins are burning they are completely removed from circulation. This is done to ensure the scarcity/liquidity of the coin. Thus, the number of coins decreases but the demand for the coin is still high, so the price increases. We can see how this is done correctly on the example of BNB, which is in demand by all Binance users.  I've also read some years ago that  BTC investors were specifically sending BTC on non valid addresses. So they were burning BTC. But now, in many cases, the burning is being used as a kind of PR for a coin/token.

For example, one of these projects decided to burn tokens immediately and not later. Based on their research, they concluded that in this way the value will increase immediately. I read the documentation and it will be interesting to see whether this solution is correct or not.

In deed burning is a good practice from marketing point of view to increase price by reducing  supply of tokens/coins to attract more investment but recently we have witnessed lot of new Meme projects being launched with huge supply ( Trillions of tokens) to attract buyers at extremely low price. These meme coins have no use case but still newbies in crypto buy them with idea to get rich quick. The management of these projects  later announce burning mechanism as a strategy tool to refrain investors from selling. This is abuse of burning mechanism.

Burning coins is simply an application of a Law of supply and demand, the more token or coin supply circulating the more the value of coin becomes lesser. I don't know the other reason for burning tokens other than the need to sustain the current market value so that it will not drop to a minimum level but to reach another ATH. So far one of the examples I can relate to this is the SLP, the in-game token minted on the famous NFT game Axie Infinity, this game has a lot of players which reach a million players every day and the minted token every day is also reached millions but the case is there is no other effective burning strategy other than breeding fee, so the more the token circulating the lesser the value of the token.

like the on the first page does. the burn coin is become marketing right now some memcoin burn their coin to vitalik address, but not all the coin to be burned worth 500hundred token of meme maybe worth of couple of buck with supply of billion and some of it burn via dev address its mean the token itself never enter the circulation never be traded right

actually the purpose of this burning is so that coins are limited in the market, of course the circulating supply will also decrease and be limited so that it can reduce the potential for inflation.

This burning returns to the mechanism of related crypto companies in order to maintain price stability, among them there are those who burn 15 times per 3 months like Binance did so that the price of the coins jumps up to a dozen times...

Actually, there are many reasons to burn coins/tokens, and that is in accordance with the motivation of the project developer. whose end goal is as I mentioned him above.

Burning, in my opinion is done for a number of reasons : (1) When a new coin is at its early stage ,  after the sale/pre-sale,  the coins that are not purchased as well as the coins not mapped out for a particular purpose are burned so as to gain trust from the public as well as improve the value of the coin. By doing this the public will trust that the coin will not be dumped 8n the future.
(2) People will view the coin as viable and worthwhile to purchase because the project team is creating scarcity. (3) The value of the coin could appreciate following the law of supply and demand

Burning of coins/tokens, in my opinion, can be performed when there is need for it  - if the team hopes that such activity can improve the coin/token adoption,purchase and popularity.

By permanently removing coins from circulation, it increases the value of the remaining coins in circulation. Because people's needs are increasing, while the supply of coins is limited so the price offered can increase to get these coins. Coin burning carried out by developers is of course to increase and stabilize the valuation of coins and tokens. These coins are used to pay service fees known as gas fees. Imagine if the number of coins in circulation is getting rarer, while the need is increasing, then people will scramble to get these coins at a higher price offer.

One of the main reasons coin burning has gained popularity recently is that it allows cryptocurrencies to begin at low prices and then artificially enhance their value after people invest. Because of the low price, a new cryptocurrency might begin with 1 trillion tokens for a fraction of a cent and attract investors. Later, the creators can raise the price by burning billions of tokens.

Coin burning aims to reduce their supply on the market, with a reduced and limited number of tokens making the token price easier to pump up, and the purpose of burning is a mechanism to maintain price stability, as ethereum and binance have done in recent months, the price has skyrocketed tremendously. maybe this mechanism will be carried out by other project developers to improve the quality and quantity of their projects,

It's a scheme.  They are implying your coins are worth more automatically but it's not true it still relys on demand which they can generate.  People think burn half the coins and it will be worth double.  But if you burn half the coins in something that has little to no value anyway does it really mean anything?  The worst are the projects that start by just burning coins. Lol.  Rediculous.

The purpose of burning tokens carried out by developers is to reduce supply circulating in the market, with a decrease in their tokens, it is very possible for the token price to be more valuable and have the opportunity to have the best price on the market. thus the tokens that are burned will increase the number of fans.

Coin burning like this has been happening for a long time, many have experienced success and some have not had any effect, because actually burning a coin will only function properly if there is an increase in demand for the coin which is supported by a reduced supply of coins in circulation, increasing scarcity. and the increased demand will increase the price of the coin.

Exactly. Just because coins are burned, doesn't mean they're going to increase in price. Demand is what matters most, and without it, crypto projects will be doomed to failure. I've seen many scarce cryptocurrencies fail in the long run because of the lack of demand. Developers should focus on increasing mainstream adoption on their projects than simply changing monetary policy. BNB is one of the few cryptocurrencies on the market which constantly burns its supply, and provides real use cases to the mainstream world. You just have to choose the "good apples" from the "bad ones". As long as you choose your coins wisely, you'll have nothing to worry about. Just my opinion :)

I think the burning of coins has a good and bad side. If the coins have a limited supply then it's quite good and "they" say that it will increase the price but for the coins/ token that are billions of supply it's just hype especially for those new projects.

Everything is also not easy, sir, all need the process too.
There must be a risk too, what if something bad happens with the new token or coin situation.?
What's more, if the coin or token is still new, of course investors will also think long before choosing exceptions such as BTC, ETH, BNB.

Simply put, the burning of coins can create a shortage in the supply of these coins and by using the burning method of the project development team, they hope that the coin price will be more valuable and can maintain the stability of the coin price, currently the burning feature has become one of the features that are often used by developers who aim to deflation the value of the coin.

Burning proves that devs. want to seriously increase the price and certainly prove that the devs. not making dumps by selling cheap, burning is certainly a good thing and makes investors believe that coins are getting scarcer and demand will continue to increase so the price will also skyrocket.

when they burn coins, one of them can affect many investors who are interested in their platform to trade, less supply and higher opportunities just to upgrade coins, especially if we only talk about good projects, for example with Binance, they continue to burn and looks good .

I believe that every coin/token burning will create a new sensation and provide enormous opportunities.

The Reason Behind Coin Burning may be because of Increase Value of Coins Bitcoin had a Proof_Of_Work (POW) where Miners can burn bitcoinBTC, for example, to earn another coin. Similarly, there is a Proof_Of_Burn {POB) mechanism Whereas such Coins following POB consensus have to burn token for actively managing on the blockchain
A SHORT ANSWER WILL BE
IT DEPENDS.
if a coin is Following POB algorithm then it had burning mechanism at fixed times. This is a good to the token holders the token they are holding is definetly going on the right direction but on the other hand
If a coin burning only happening to increase token market value only than it's not good

It greatly affects the price.  The community is very happy with the burning event because it makes the assets of the project have less supply and are getting more expensive, without reducing the amount of their investors' assets. This means that it is an instant pump. This technique is also very effective for creating hype easily. The project will soon rise again after burning.

In theory when the supply of coins in the market is high the price decreases. This decrease on the price will not recover unless the supply in the market will be reduced. And that burning seems to be a better option being implemented to reduce the supply of the coins in the market circulation. It gives us impression then that when the supply is reduced through burning the price of the coins becomes higher. 

Because burning is a big thing for any project if any project have low supply then it's sure price can goes high and also it's a sign of good project burning event pump too much any project

Even if the burning strategy doesn't work on all the coins in the market.  Projects on which Burning Strategy works very well tend to increase their price over time and give good returns to future investors.  It can be said that good burning project coin is good.

Many projects are doing this to grow the value of their coins even traders or investors also take interest in such coins where dev plan to burn their coins at regular intervals. The logic behind burning I think is like a trader if the supply is getting reduced the value of the coin will increase basically I would say dev creates hype by announcing burning the coins so they can attract more investors and grow the value of their coins. At present many new projects are doing this but this is not the way to the success of any project. Yes, burning the coins affect the market value of the coin.

Many time burning coin not giving any impact and price still stable, looking with Cake coin as monthly event make burning coin but price still stable and not increasing up above 20$. Right now cake stuck above $13 and looks keep existing almost two months after bitcoin crash and right now still looks stable and not raise up again to higher price, every month developer always make burning with cake coin and I think have bad side with developer keep selling their assets during burning happen.

Not so sure.

It can temporarily price increase but still, there's no guarantee that it will. It's always been an event that every investor is waiting for like any other news.

But remember that it's not giving assurance to every investor and that's the same with halving in altcoins.

Token burning mechanism doesn't necessarily prove that the devs are good or legitimate (non-scammy). The major benefit is that when there's a decrease in the token supply, there's a perception that being deflationary is good since it means > less supply > less selling pressure > potential price growth but this isn't always the case except the team is burning a very significant amount similar to how Binance conduct theirs. It also increases the confidence of investors, token holders and community.

Some people do really get the wrong idea about burning on which they do really get boost up and tend to believe that the project team is really serious on dealing or on making updates with the project.

It is true that this isn't a solid indication that they are legit because burning mechanics or something like this doesn't mean that the coin is legit.Yes, it could lessen the supply but it do still all matters with

the demand itself and this is something that cant really be controlled because it all matters with projects potential and real use case or simply with recognition.

That's actually true. Token burn doesn't necessarily do anything to demand unless there's demand already on ground and such news just act as a catalyst that aids token growth because over the course of the year, I've witnessed projects that did token burn that did little to no effect to the token value or made the project seem bullish. What I like to see is that the project already has momentum and token burn event will just boost it up even more.

I will say most of them are just over-hyped as others pointed out especially on shit or meme coins dont forget most of those coins are like one trillion so burning is some how untraceable I will avoid that but sometimes on good coin with better fundamental It can make coin deflationary and with more usage that means better liquidity and token price

The fact is that these can not course fluctuations of market, any thing about altcoins is believable when the market to turn real but when market falls the reason will become difference, make we believe that token burning is not some thing that brings the market up and down on like coins that is important

Well the original idea of a burn was to reduce supply and increase value, this has been abused.
You'll see projects launching with supply of 1000 000 000 000 000 with a price per token of $0.00001 which will attract many gamblers, and then once ido is over, you burn half of the supply and your value increases

Developers only burn coins with the hopes of attracting investors into their projects. But scarcity is not the only thing which makes a cryptocurrency successful. Mainstream adoption is the key for any crypto asset to thrive in the long term. Without this, we cannot expect crypto prices to go all the way to the moon (even with added scarcity). I've seen many coins and tokens with a burning mechanism, only to fail within a short amount of time. If developers focused on making crypto more useful (rather than speculative), we'd really be going somewhere. They can burn all the coins they want, but at the end of the day, usability matters. There are only a few coins like this on the market, so there's that. Just my thoughts ;D

I think the burning of coins is very influential on the value of altcoins. because with a reduced total supply it will increase the value and price of altcoins. and there have been a lot of altcoins that have burned coins to pump up prices in the market. because the amount of supply greatly affects the interest of traders or investors.

This is the theory as well as the way of increasing economical growth of a altcoin. If a project come with fix 5B coins total circulation & after tokensale, they can't use burn theory for hype! But if the same project come with 10B & after tokensale, they announce to burn 30/50% of it, then undoubtedly people who already hold that token, will obviously buy more by manage fund anyhow, even others public will also join and thus project can create hype successfully and increase the marketcap of a token. Even bnb already done that and maybe thats why coin burning seems good and getting popular nowadays

The burning of coins will be good news for the holder because if the amount of supply decreases it is likely that the price will increase drastically. The price is greatly influenced by the amount of supply and demand, coin burners will reduce the supply and increase demand because burning coins is good news and the news will attract many investors to buy. burning is an effort made by the development team to increase the price of the product (altcoin) of the project, so it can be said that coin burning is very good for the future of the project.

That is if the coin that has been burned still has a large number of devotees, but if the coin that is burned still does not have a lot of interest then the change in price will also not be very large and it will not even be that far from the previous one.

I am unfamiliar with what burning coin is, but in my experience as a trader, when there is a burning event, the price of the coin moves significantly, in general I understand what burning is, reduction the supply of coins in the market, or in their cold wallet, but generally speaking, I understand the details a bit by reading the OP's article above, and I am agree, burning coins is good for holders and traders.

Mostly Common routines of a coin, possibly to highlight their projects much easily among people. but i saw those hype doesn’t work for every project btw! For example: when a coin announced for burning, price should be increased. But after buy that coin, you’ll see that coin start dumping instead of rising up.
we'll see same things with others projects too and Should be careful, otherwise possible that anyone could be Victim of such tricky trap and could lost their fund as i explained above

Yeah right.

It doesn't work for every project.

They may burn as much as they can just to have a news for their token but nothing beats use case and natural growth of a project. It's not working for all.

A few works perfectly after announcing burning but many doesn't.

burning coins is one way to increase the price of coins, they think by reducing the supply of coins the price will go up, and they report the burning in the media in the hope that more people will see and invest in the coins,so I think burning is a tactic to increase the popularity of coins.
.