Bitcoin Forum

Today's coins on the market are nothing more than some get rich quick scheme, and knowing very well that People are on the lookout for best performing crypto coins on the market, several projects have resorted to burning to pump prices artificially to paint a rosy picture.

Is Burning the ultimate solution to get prices going up for our coins out there? And why is this mostly done by a certain niche of coins like xxxxx finance, xxxx inu etc

Is marketing crypto coins the good old fashioned way obsolete?

---

Wonder what would happen if dogecoin started burning Coins with its huge support base already on standby....

credit: CryptoInsightsX (https://twitter.com/CryptoInsightsX)

From what I know so far that the coins that have the burning feature are coins that are still owned by the developer while dogecoin is almost said based on community development, if this can be implemented it will need voting but I don't understand exactly how to burn the system can be applied to community coins such as dogecoin.

I agree with you to an extent. Burns are now deployed as a soft scam tool by most developers these days. We can't ignore it. New projects now use it to attract investors. They mint like a gazillion amount of tokens and build a burn code into it, then regularly hit the codeto cause small pumps, thereby attracting new investors

The current marketing that they've got isn't working anymore because the bear market is stronger than their way of marketing. These burning mechanisms have became a trend when companies and projects like BNB has found success on it and the same goes for Ethereum which was one of the latest upgrade that it has got. These marketing ploys that these meme coins are putting with their burning of tokens, it's not really going to work at these times but if they do this on a bull run, there's a chance that it will really attract more investors.

Question so is burning of tokens mainly just to up the price of the tokens does it serve any other purpose?
So it would be written in the smart contract it self?

I don't see the activity of burning coins as bad, nor good. Also, if we call it a scammy activity then we should label all other parts of economy that does that. Don't banks/governments print money or take old coins out of circulation? Don't shares and other publicly tradable assets do the same to keep their values in shape/ to stay agile and relevant in the market? They just call it different or not at all - is the act of buying back stocks/shares so they can keep a low volume circulating, in hopes that will incfrease demand and value. But it can happen the other way around, so is not really a safe or proven practice. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. As in other corporate stocks, this activity can have also its negative - in stocks it happens to backfire and we all know it happens in crypto as well. We just hurry to call it scam here, but in my opinion is just normal activity in a free market, is all possible and whatever works...

I think it's a twisting tactic to raise the price of a coin, why would there be a big total supply of coins in the first place? Sometimes the number is mythical, in some coins it reaches 20 digits!!! One of the secrets of Bitcoin's success is that it has a limited total supply that cannot be scaled up in any way, so in my opinion burning is just a twisting method of marketing.

The most effective way of increasing the price and most of the time they announced it before they do so because of the potential buyers to hold the coins after buying it for cheaper price just before the burning procedure. Most of the altcoins are doing this kind of method to further attract investors to buy their coins and the early birds are the luckiest guys because after burning there's a high tendency for the price of the coin to increase.

All of them are pump dump coins and by burning supply they just want to increase the prices to gain more profits themselves in the centralised wallets in which most of the supply is capped and what else do you expect from these coins? I would say not to invest in any of them as most of them are going to zero without any much longer period so stay away from them.

Devs need to point out "burning" old coins so as to emphasis that they care about the coin's economy, when in fact it shouldn't be the case since if you have a good coin to start with, lowering its number down wouldn't even come to as a solution at all. You wouldn't have this problem on the coin's economics, and you would rather focus on other important matters and less about the coin's price. Personally, I wouldn't buy these coins that has burning mechanism embedded towards it. It just doesn't sit well to me.

Burning tokens has been a marketing ploy for a very long time. I recall most projects tend to include the periodic burning of tokens to give holders a false sense of value or comfort that the value of the tokens would increase in the future, if they hold for a longer period of time. Burning in most cases has not been helpful as the tokens still faces the same fate as many others in the market.

The burning mechanism is useless if they cannot back it up with a good platform I never look at the burning mechanism if the supply is on billions and they have no platform to back up their coin/token, a token/coin cannot sustain itself in the market if they only have staking, and burning mechanism, we have proven that in the past they cannot sustain their project in a long term and they fall into a pump and dump category.

That method worked effectively to reduce or control the circulating supply of coins, but is now turning into a powerful way for many projects to use it as a scheme to pump up their coin prices.
BNB still uses this method but doesn't pay attention to what really affects the price.

Burning is just an illusion created by the developers to make people think if when tokens have less supply and it will be even more valuable. Mostly of shit tokens were using this mthod caused by they didn't have actual usage. they are being created as a money grabber and so there's no way to create the hype other than doing self burn which doesn't even make sense to be done by so many scam tokens like that.

Since doge coin has not premined coin as the developers of doge coin already sold their coins to bought old civic and it will never be possible for doge coin. The only possible thing to implement burning mechanism for doge coin like what already done by ethereum before it went to the POS.

the concept of burning is what investors are waiting for because they know from the end after burning their tokens, that there will be a significant increase even if not directly. the increase is only temporary but with the decreasing supply it is a good thing to hold on to long term. the more tokens burn up to 50% the more people buy in large quantities

I've seen token burning from way back and I think it is proven that prices can soar up since many devs has done it and even top coins such as BNB has been burning their own token that were announce by CZ few times. I think it is still effective to the current date that's why they are still doing it. Reducing the supply logically can bring up the value if it has enough demand. Just be attentive of those coins that are just burning and burning to just raise their value, I personally doubt those projects especially if they are burning for nothing.

I think coins of today that have these big numbers have always had the intention to burn at the expense of the investors which benefits the devs!

For bitcoin it worked out because it has stood to be the face of all cryptocurrencies. And the model of having a limited and small total supply means price of coin will be high and should demand rise, this certainly pushes price even higher.

Unfortunately this burning of coins works well if both supply and demand are affected without any one side remaining constant. But you are definitely right on its short term impact when the coin undergoes a Burn.

I understand what you are trying to say here but I guess they really have no choice because the old marketing idea doesn't work anymore due to the competition getting higher/broader. The only solution is mimic Bitcoin with a smaller number of coins and maybe some luck if ever investors find out about it.
What I don't understand is, they are the ones who input how many coins they will create and yet after a year they will try to burn it out.
Yes, I think because there no other way or they are cornered.

Burning the shitcoins in my views is just a scheme to promote the he project tokenomics  and attract the Capital. Every second project is introducing as the burner its good but its not the real time feature. Good projects introduce good products. In my view the growth of the project is non depending on the burning timeline. So What matter is Projects ecosystem.

These burns attracted a lot of attention during the bull season, but I don't think they will attract much attention right now. It was actually used as a kind of marketing tactic in the bull, if there is a volume in the market again, I don't know if the same tactic will work again, they need more. I keep the BNB burning method separately, of course, projects should create a burning mechanism against inflation.

It is only if the number of coins burned exceeds the number of coins generated, for example by mining or unlocking. That is, if the coin will not create deflation, then the burning will not have much effect on the price. As a prime example, we can remember the burning of the Axie token, which was not enough to beat inflation and the increasing supply of coins on the market. As a result, the price of that token began to decline very quickly, despite the fact that there was constant coin burning in the tokenomics of the project.

Coins exceed the number of coins generated, but how does this happen ??? I thought If coins are reported to have 21million coins as the total supply it can never exceed this number... And by the way don't these projects go for a coin audit and the alike to avoid such under counts ???

Clearly demand was missing from this and the herd mentality was all locked on selling which resulted in putting so much pressure on price to keep tanking. But the situation would have been different if the team or whales countered by buying all coins from dumping hands this would have seen price going to the moon.

It is definitely a sure thing that burning coins on a new thing is a big problem, because they do not worth anything at all, plus the burned ones are always the ones that wasn't in the market anyway.

I mean look at bnb, they burn a lot of coins, right? Should worth more afterwards, but the reality is that the bnb they burn is not the bnb that was on the trading block, it was never causing any price changes, it was on their wallet and not affecting the price anyway, so the difference between them keeping it in a cold storage or burning it didn't really matter at all. I personally hope that it would make some changes and we would see buybacks as a bigger deal instead of burning.

Well i have to agree that in most cases a token burn is just a pretty obvious marketing trick in order to suggest a deflationary supply and an increasing rarity of the tokens or coins. In most cases though those token burns have absolutely no effect on the price because the numbers that are burnt are so small in comparison to the total supply that it just does not matter at all. Shiba Inu is a good example for that in my opinion. You can often see news about Millions of Shiba Inu coins burned, but the total supply of Shiba Inu is so big that millions of tokens are still only 0,00001% or so.

This has been going on for some time already and without a doubt it is nothing more but a marketing strategy trying to make their coin more attractive, but this is flawed by design, just because they are making something more rare this does not mean that its value will increase, however I think that since Luna crashed and they tried this ploy to try to get people to invest in their scam project again we are seeing this tactic being used more often than in the past.

Burning occurs in many coins of limited issue. Don't think that burning is only relevant for coins with infinite issuance. For example, BNB has a limited issue of 200 million tokens, but Binance constantly reports on the coins it burns. This is necessary to control the balance between supply and demand, i.e. the developers redeem their tokens in order to normalize the price of the asset and prevent a rise in inflation, which would cause the price of the token itself to fall.


Whales buying coins from weak hands doesn't mean there will be lightning-fast growth. Look at bitcoin, in the last 5 months several millions of coins were bought at $18,000-23,000, but for some reason the price has been stomping on the same price point for months, even though the purchases continue. Strange, don't you think? The thing is, until market makers steer the market in the right direction, these accumulative whale purchases won't have the desired effect.

this reduction will have a big effect for sure when the bull comes back in although the bull is still a question mark when it will happen. there will also be a significant increase in the burning of these tokens, as did BNB continue to burn its tokens, and the occurrence of a large increase in the bull season yesterday

I believe marketing crypto coins is still thriving.  Burning coins is still a marketing strategy to make people believe that the coins will get more scarce.  This is just another ploy to attract new comers and push the value of Dogecoin.  Though many scam coins always use this strategy because they are too lazy to do a proper marketing.  Besides, burning coins has a good ring on it from the investors' side, so why not exploit it?

---

I think the pump and dump group is possibly cooperating to pump the price of Dogecoin when the burning mechanism came to live.  So we can observe a surge of price (which is possibly a short live) when this happens.

this method is just to make the impression of scarcity towards the coin even though they knew beforehand that having too much supplies of the coin gonna be detrimental for their coin but they just trying to solve it by reducing the supplies of their coin even though this could be prevented before hand, basically it's true that this kind of thing is just marketing. even though it might be different case with coin like eth and bnb in which this method could definitely increase their value.

It's same, in the end those tokens are centralized and doesn't have any value at all. Value and price are different thing, value is where the token have a use case and anyone interested because of the value regardless how much the price. While price is just based on people who trade that's token, it can be manipulated too since those tokens owner hold most of the tokens and not distribute to public.

Burning coins is just temporary make the coins more scarcer, but it will keep increase and increase since the supply is unlimited.

He is right, as far as I understand it is like this. The number of tokens burned will be greater than the number of tokens mined and if this is done regularly it will lead to less and less supply thus preventing inflation and the price will increase due to supply limit.

I take back the BNB example: the total supply of BNB is 200 million, but it is not fully circulated in the market and people will mine by staking, but the amount of BNB mined quarterly will be redeemed and burned quarterly. This means that there will be less than 200 million BNB in circulation, thus will cause the price of BNB to get higher and higher after each burn.

It was been a practice by some developers but never I see this as even more effective to say whether their project is worth investing in or not.
Some had thought it was a good way to increase the price due to lowering the number of its total market cap. But in the case of shitcoins, I'm not sure if this could help and make the price grow.

I would say that investing in projects with such a history is too risky. Because for me burning is not the solution but a good market strategy and the potentiality of the project is seem to consider when choosing coins to invest in.

To be honest, I believe that all aspects of cryptography undergo periodic shifts. Developers (both legitimate and fraudulent) are learning the same lessons that investors are. Although the burning mechanism was originally employed for a noble cause, unscrupulous actors later came to view it as a means to quickly amass wealth by means of a "pump and dump" token or coin. It's unfortunate, but it's the truth. TWe will see if it's possible for it to happen to dogecoin too.