Bitcoin Forum

Hi,
Some How this Burn Buzz word stuck in my mind and i didn't see practical results so far in any successful token.

For example, Shiba Inu is burning tokens aggressively and is it really helping them?

May be i am noob here and happy to hear from experts!

I believe this topic will be useful for someone too!

In theory, that means making the supply less, and when the supply is low but the demand is high, the price of that token will be worth more. But for a token or coin to increase in price, there are many factors, it will not depend solely on the burning of coins.

In my opinion, you should only consider this factor for large projects, projects that have use cases like ETH or BNB, it will be really helpful in helping push the coin price. But when it comes to memes and shitcoins, burning won't work because their value like Doge or Shiba depends on shark manipulation.

Burns can have a positive impact on crypto tokens by potentially reducing the token's supply, which might increase its scarcity and value in the market. However, the effect depends on various factors and the overall dynamics of the specific token's ecosystem.

Burning works on the premise that there is actual demand. It's probably not working for a lot of projects because they also have to create or manipulate the demand for the token. They often advertise aggressively by creating hype all over social media and offering new features that may or may not be useful at all. Methods like that are only good for short term.

Token burn on Meme coins is a complete a hokum to trick user that the token price will increase by decreasing supply while they set the initial total supply to abunch of tokens.

Token burn is good for tokens that has a real utility to gain profit that will be use to commit buy back on the circulating supply tokens but token burn on meme coin is useless since meme coin doesn’t have any real utility to gain profit aside from the investors money that being use as liquidity for the token.

Burns doesn't need to supply a successful project they keep their development process moving and attract investors. If the total amount of tokens of a project is high then i think the burns system will not work. Moreover token reduction of good projects is effectively positive.
Also, many project gona to scam like this system, so that's why you have to be careful and stay away from such project.

I think that burning may have both positive and negative effects depending on the case.

In short, I see aggressive burning as negative, but steady burning as positive.

Many other factors should be counted in too. One unusual factor is that the purpose of burning may be an initial distribution of a new token. For example, we did this for Blacknet around 2018.

It's not really helping them. How big the impact from the burn totally depends on its mechanism. I took two different examples

1. BNB burn mechanism

BNB burn used profit raised through operating its product to buy back the tokens from the market. This is also pushing the circulating supply to be even less than before. It was giving huge impact to the price caused by binance has active product that was regularly generating profit for the burning purpose

2. Meme token burn mechanism

Meme token used tax mechanism to burning its token but this is only fooling investors caused by the burn generated from giving tax for any transfers that interact with the meme token smartcontract.
This burn mostly used by stupid dev who didn't evne understand about the product.



Shiba doesn't really burning its token. The biggest burn of shiba came from vitalik butterin.

Not all of those tokens and projects that burn their supply are successful. As you've said, it becomes a buzz word whenever there is an announcement from any token and project that they're going to burn supply. Some of those are lucky to have a strong community and any news that they release to their community are being bought by their investors. But as I have said, not all of them are the same and even with halving or burning, not all gets the attention.

In addition to burning, you also need the necessary demand. Burning coins by itself does not guarantee anything. It may just be one of the marketing ploys to lure investors. It is important to consider at what rate the coins are burned. If they are burned at a much slower rate than how inflation in the token itself grows, then the burn in such a cryptocurrency doesn't matter much. Something similar can be observed with the LUNC cryptocurrency.

Actually as per basic economics it does makes some sense as if you see the demand is the same it's the supply which gets reduced and if this thing happens, it's very obvious that the equilibrium gets disturbed if this thing happens and therefore ideally there should be a price increase. But the problem that many market theorists tell is that there is no real gain that flows because the token that are burnt are already with the team and were already not part of the flow so it doesn't really impacts the price.

Burn mechanisms used to be a key driver for upside token drive but the story has changed in recent times. Maybe in 2017-2020 but not anymore. The way the mechanism works is that some tokens are taken out of circulation. When this happens, it is usually perceived as a positive event since decreasing supply is believed to mean that price go up:

Supply goes down, price go up. (similar to bitcoin halving event where mining rewards get slashed in half).

However, most of these projects don't have a fixed total supply. There's usually an inflation that doesn't get offset by the burn events.

it all always comes down to the demand for the price to go up regardless of how much token are burned.
the thing is that so many project are doing this just to attract attention, but they fail miserably, some of them also burning their token decreasing the total supply just because why not, and as a result, the price stays the same even sometime it goes down hill.
these burning are part of strategy that could further helps increase the price of a project but of course it needs demand and being the center of attention first so that investors will notice that this token might be promising, though if the coin or token is pure garbage then many wouldn't care.

Technically yes, but that depends on so many things. Starting from how much is going to be burned, who is burning them and in what rate? How do they acquire the burned tokens? Do they buy them from the market and continuing to do so or are devs burning their own stash that they wouldn't use anyway? (which wouldn't make anything but artificial meaningless difference to circulating supply.

As a rule of thumb; burning technically always helps the price grow. In reality it often doesn't as there are just too much to burn in order it to have any effect.

Burn will not help the price of token until it will always able to burn significant amounts of tokens that can affect the circulating supply. Keep in your mind if there are so many fake burn being made by the stupid developers.

Burn will not instantly pumping the price of token. This depends on how good the development from project.

For the long term I can see it's good because if supply is limited and there is token burn, supply is just decreasing over time.
But if the project is trash, these burning thing is just some kind of marketing to lure people into investing in their projects showing that the price could go up.

Lesser supply, higher value. But it doesn't always work that way.
In the past, I've seen an ICO cut their total amount of coins by three zeros (000) the billions of coins became millions, and yet the value was just glued unto. There was a window of an increase in market value but it didn't even last a day. Simply because the coins that all the holders have was also cut by three zeros so you cannot even say they did a burning mechanism, just an adjustment.
What Shiba Inu is doing may have the same effect as well. They have too many coins being held and on their stock plus they are a meme coin so the probability of the value going up is not that high. I'd stick with other coins with real projects behind them.

Burning coins if I am not mistaken got popular a few years ago as a gimmick to try to make it seem as if by burning those coins then the price of the remaining coins will become higher.

But this brings an uncomfortable question, why the developers did not created their coin with a smaller supply to begin with? And it is obvious they refused to do so as they wanted to use burning their coins as a market strategy to create attention for their coin, however as we know for any asset to become valuable its supply not only needs to be on the low side but its demand needs to be high, as well and while burning tokens can reduce the supply, it does absolutely nothing to increase the demand.

Can you define what is the positive way you refers to?

It will decrease the supply and technically make it more scarce, so the price would increase, it's correct for short term because the supply is unlimited. After all decreasing the circulation supply when the total supply is unlimited is pointless, burning or not, it's always centralized and the developer hold most of the coins.

This does not apply to all altcoins because others don't have anything to offer from the start that's why the only thing they can do is to burn some of their tokens to simply give the investors assurance that their altcoin is getting some momentum and it will increase its price soon. Others like Shiba Inu are doing a great job while their market is healthy, they choose to spice things up by burning some allocations of their tokens which will be no doubt the best thing to do in order to increase the price of their token and by the way, I read the news yesterday that they are gaining more investors and the price of Shiba Inu is increasing because of this event.

It's one way of helping the coin increase in demand since supply would decrease, meaning there are fewer coins for anyone who wants to buy it. Emphasis on "one" though, since it's not the only factor that involves demand. If a highly demanded coin started burning to reduce its supply, then its price would most likely soar, but if a not so demanded coin suddenly started burning in an attempt to stoke the economy, chances are nothing is really going to change. There might be a change in a day or two, but that's about it, it wouldn't even be that big imo. It'd probably drop down to it's regular price after that.

Burn limits the number of tokens on circulation as well the final number of supply. A burn by limiting the tradable tokens should be able to increase the demand of the token making it's price expensive. But if the release of tokens are larger than the burn amount, it would keep on increasing the circulating coins hence the burn would have no effect.
Burn of Shiba Inu should yield a positive boost on price, if not at the moment, eventually it would have a positive effect.

We thought before that burning tokens will help to grow its price because that is what they have said and these developers make a promise. A lot of people got fool by such a thing. Investors had expected too much from that but what they have seen after is nothing. It is a failed strategy and so people don't believe it anymore. Honestly, what makes a price grow in a particular project is based on how valuable it was. But these shitcoins and useless projects, no matter how much tokens they burn, it doesn't change as it remains worthless project.

Sometimes its psychological in my opinion. People thinks that when supply become shorts its become valuable. But in the essence of law of supply and demand thats true. But it depends on the tokenomics of the project. Apparently it could be a bluff but others work on it like literally pumping when there is a news.

Yes, token burning is a positive thing in tokenomics as it helps reduce maximum supply and expectedly creates scarcity. Scarcity creates demand. Demand causes price to flip. However, it's not the only thing that should cause price to rally up. I think use-case or utility of a token is more important than its burning. If a token has utility that investors already know of, and then the project decides to burn; that becomes an instant spike in price to the upside. I must confess that most noob investors would rather think of token burning than they think of its utility.

Hello Sir, postive way i meant increasing Market cap and price token increase!

the value comes from the demand, reducing total supply if nobody is looking for the coins will simply means futile attempt. thats what happened with so many shit coins out there, they think their coin is so good if they reduced their total supply they will immediately become something of high value but thats just not true at all.
mainly because demand is what determine the prices of these coins in general, even if there is only 1% of total supply left after burning if there's no demand then the coin is as good as useless.
so many coins out there never do burning and still getting good value because they are just that good fundamentally.

indeed, as said, burning tokens aims to increase the value of these tokens.  but what you need to remember is that in the world of trade, the value of an item increases if the demand for that item increases.  so even if the token is burned if the demand for the token does not increase, the value will definitely be the same

Burn can work out if the project is actually developing and reaching some new milestones. There are many projects that have been down in the dumps and have stopped buring tokens. Limited supply and burn means a gradual rise in price if the trading is continuing properly on good exchanges. However this is not always possible and most projects die out quickly.

I think the best way to assess these projects is to maintain a chart of how your chosen projects have done in the last 2years and then only decide whether to invest in it.

I realize that it is going to be important to burn some part of the supply to decrease the supply so even if there is same level of demand then lower supply would make the price go up. However, it doesn't work for a lot of people considering the fact that we are facing situations where demand is so low that supply could be much lower and it still doesn't change anything.

I understand that it will not be at a point where it is reaching to a new level, but as long as we could end up being a bit different, it should be fine. Just get some hype, get some people very happy regarding the burn, that should be how it is and that should be how it could improve. Unfortunately not a lot of people are happy about it currently, not for many tokens at least, they just ignore it and price doesn't change much.

Its the process of permanently rendering tokens worthless by removing them from circulation. Do I have your attention yet? I cant imagine somebody voluntarily doing it.

In a counterintuitive turn of events, token burning can boost the value of unspent tokens. As the quantity of tokens diminishes (through tokens being burned), the value of the remaining tokens may increase, assuming demand remains constant or grows.

Aggressive burning can be used to keep or improve the value of Shiba Inu or any other token. However, keep in mind that this is merely one tactic among several used in projects. Success or failure depends on many other variables, such as the state of the market, the strength of the project's foundations, the level of community support, etc.

The law of supply and demand will always be right, it will not deviate from those two things. Burning tokens that are carried out also aims to reduce the supply of tokens which results in price increases because everyone will say the supply is decreasing and getting less. this is a marketing trick to increase the positive token price, where the circulating supply decreases. The Shiba Inu are a true example of the crazy rise when it comes to Burning their tokens. But it also depends on how the community is owned, if the community is solid and continues to be active then it can develop, but the community is small and not solid, it will only end up being abandoned.

In theory, burning could help to make the supply smaller and could lead to better price growth because with less supply, scarcity will occur and purchases will be more expensive.

But things like this will only happen for coins that are really worth it but when it comes to meme coins or shitcoins burning is just like a figure of speech and seems like nonsense because regardless of whether there is burning or not I think in this case we already know how the continuation will happen because in the end coins like that can only develop with a pump and dump system so no matter how much burning is done for shitcoin and memecoin it will be useless because there will be no impact and it is just a strategy to make it seem like the coin is alive.

It works for some projects but not all that promise an increase in its price went perfectly, many are still low and have no changes. That is why we can't blame people for saying that is not an effective way for changing the view of a particular project because if that is a shitcoin/s, we couldn't really expect such thing as "pump" but what we probably see is that the project will stay low and worthless and investors remain don't have the courage to buy them.

It all lies on the potentiality of the project, not the total market supply. In fact, ETH can prove it.

Hello there..
Basically, token or coin burning aims to reduce the amount of supply circulating in the market to be smaller. Well, in theory, this makes sense, because it is hoped that it will attract more and more interest from old and new investors to invest in these tokens or coins. However, an investor usually also pays attention to the amount of token supply, if it's too much, then this will also have an impact on sales, right? Just imagine if there is more supply than demand, this will end in a token drop significantly and it will be difficult to go back up.

However, if token burning is held, the supply can be greatly reduced, this will make the number of token supply even less, so that the less token supply, won't it reduce the gap between demand? What's more, usually if there is a token burning, then investors can be more confident if the token can rise again, at least they are not too worried because the number of tokens is very large.

But again, this will also depend on what kind of token or coin it is. However, many shit coins or shit tokens also do this but still can't go up again or have high potential. because not all projects that do token burning can really optimize their potential, even just a matter of burning it without doing anything else that can strengthen the project. It will still be shitcoins.

The answer is given already and it can help the supply less and also by doing this it can also create demand. So when the supply is less then the demand is high for that action or other things they do the price would provably up that's why its also good to participate to those project who always have burning solution to their increasing supply since this could really be a big help to their project to get a good boost especially when people losing an interest since the price is declining so bad.

But also remember that this scenario not always happen since there are scam tokens who do this just for hype and to scam people.

well honestly when we are talking about ethereum its among the most effective ones in burning the total supply to keep their circulating supply from getting overflowed.
as a result, this coin has been going up ever since and the main factors that could make this coin having burn mechanism that really effective is also the fact that this coin have massive demands generated from its utility being the most used smart contract and the fact that the gas fee quite high meaning many would stack some ethereum for the sake of interacting with smart contract prominently the dapps.
ethereum is just different compared to other altcoins in this case, its just too good despite the fact that its quite expensive.

The lesser the supply the higher the price would be on a particular token and considering that SHIB does have that huge supply then it would really be just that normal that value would be lessen but in general sense it would really be just still that same because even if the supply is low the price is huge in terms of value or digit but it would really be just the same if we do speak about those huge ones.
Huge supply wont really be that an issue if a particular coin or token would really be having that actual utility on which means that demand would be there and investors would really be stashing up these
coins no matter how big the supply is. It is really just that this thing isnt only applicable on SHIB itself but in most coins in the market, burning mechanisms is something that would really be that
relevant on each project and does give out that kind of impression that they would really be pumping their price.

There is no dependency of token burning to surge or spike after its supply's has been reduced, there could be some chances that after burning the token if the team do not add liquidity to project it would still remain the level at which it is. There are some token and coin that has been burned since there is nothing much depending in the market they still do not make any progress and after which, development is what really give spike to a project increase dramatically without any limitations of price or not, that is right because some project with huge supply keeps making waves in the market and price are pretting dancing well in the market without undermining to total supply. Most of us here alway had this orientation that whenever a token is burned there comes a price increase, although this could be true but if they project own do not add a reasonable amount to that project I don't think if that project could make a move by adding some percentages.

Lesser supply, more demand = increase in price. The famous basic economic law that scammers are using.

The famous project that's being token burn is Binance who have been doing this for years already until they reach the total supply of I think 100,000,000 coins. Most of the time, I'm hearing this term "token burn" in some meme coins, and shitcoins out there who are using that term just to attract new investors. On the other hand, investors think that if they buy earlier, the supply will slowly decrease thus increase it's price. The problem with this token burn is that, there's no assurance that the demand will stay the same if they lessen the supply. It's kind of useless if you decrease the supply, but the demand is low. For sure price will just go down even more.

This is very different from Binance Coin since it has a huge demand, and with the supply slowly decreasing, the price might increase in the future. As for Shiba Inu, the supply is very huge that a small token burn would have little to no effect towards the price of it. Is it helping them? Price-wise, not so much, but if they will do it in the long term, and the demand stays the same then their might be a difference in price..

As far as I know, burning brings positive impact since it reduce the number of total supply. It triggers an increase of the price/value because the circulating supply probably will be lower than usual against the demand. Moreover, it will increase faster if there are bigger demands and hype after the burning steps. So far, I don't see a negative impact of the burning steps. Can you tell me what the negative impacts are?

However, for meme coins or shit coins, it can bring no significant impact. If the coins have no demands after the hype is over, the decreasing of the total supply will mean nothing. Whatever the number of the tokens, it won't be very helpful when there is no demand anymore.

Burn only help the token price increase, but it will not make the market cap increase because the formula of market cap is circulation supply x token price. But with the token price is increase, it should be expected people will buy the token and hopefully make the market cap increase too.

But it's just a short term effect since the total supply is unlimited.

Off course I had seen many token which gain a hype with having burning tokens regularly, I have seen a token named Tdox which were continuous token. This means that there will be a less supply in order to buy more and more, then the token can gain easily a better hype.

The burning mechanism is just one of the factors that will help one token in a positive way, Shiba Inu is doing well not only because of the burning mechanism but more so because the community is still hyped on MEME coin brought by Elon Musk pushing of Dogecoin, and it so happens that Shina Inu launches on the right time, the burning mechanism is only good if there are community support and the project and its platform have a use case, we have seen other tokens concentrating on their burn mechanism but they ended up as a scam and shit coin.

Do not just rely on a burning mechanism it's easy for a contract-based token to implement a burn mechanism but they should also have something to offer to the community so they can last long in the market.

Just one factor but I'd never see how effective it was when it was applied to other projects. We can see it was good for Shiba Inu but generally, it was hyped that made the price hike due to the influence of EM which cause a price source. But looked, once it was done, the price has gone low again. And this will tell us that the burning strategy means nothing and it was not sustainable. That is why I don't give a thumbs up and I don't believe what these developers are saying _burning to increase price_that was a trick.

Its true burn help coin to show they are potential project mostly coins are that people are sold but they are still in same price and they haven't any effect about people leave project but truth is that people see that type projects so they want to invest this one ..

Not exactly. Burning only helps if the supply isn't huge. For a token like Shiba Inu, it's going to take a long time for us to see positive results. The circulating supply is still enormous. You need to keep in mind that burning is not a guarantee a cryptocurrency or token will become very valuable in the future. I've seen some coins with a burn mechanism, only to be worth a few cents in USD. That's because they lack mainstream demand compared to other players with a higher supply.

It's all about utility to make a coin preserve its value for generations. At least, Shiba Inu is off to a good start. Who knows if the constant burning of tokens will propel SHIBA to $0.01 in the future? Just my thoughts ;D

We all know that Shiba Inu is a meme coin, and its supply is very high in trillions, so a little burning won't have a significant impact on its price. However, we can speculate that there might be some long-term effects with certainty. Still, we cannot be entirely sure. Burning alone won't necessarily lead to a price hike; the project must have the potential to rise. If the project has potential, burning might positively impact the price, but if there is no use case for the project, burning won't make much of a difference. Having fewer supply coins does increase the chances of achieving a higher price, but it's essential for the project to have a meaningful use case as well. I will also say that in the crypto market, any coin can experience a pump or dump at any time.

 :D in todays world many project sucessfully manipulate noobs player for the hype burned coin which is most of them dont hit circulation, aka non exist. the chain build for this hype
people think decreased total cap, will push price up, this shit show still going till this day and quite effective, the only real burn mechanism is like eth that burned tx fee from transaction, technically they decreased total coin circulation by burning from fee, but as you know they printing via staking. some project burned the coin from fee/tax in transaction which is this the real burning mechanism. please educate yourself about "burning shit show" or you may want burned you holding? :D. nobody want burned their stash.

The theory is right but the problem with these projects is that, burning is just a gimmick to convince the investors, the fact is they generate billions of coins in circulation and once the price reach a certain valuation with the help of market manipulation and pump people would jump in and once the market sees a correction they would advertise that they are burning the token to maintain the hype and that might not help the token if the overall market sentiments are not in their favor.

LOL it burns independently, Many memecoins do this technique but they don't explain the mechanism in detail. Just burning the supply so it can reduce it.
Many noobs who end up getting caught up in memecoin do underhanded techniques and end up with a scam.
Apart from that, the technique used is not just burning, LOCk liquidity is also a way to attract new investors who don't understand anything about tokenomics and the mechanisms inside.
They don't know that Liquiditas can be drained if the largest token holder (ie the project dev) sells all of their holdings. this is just like Soft Rugpull done by the dev himself.

It's been an OG strategy to make a token pump. So so many projects before had done it even with the famous BNB, they are also burning supply but as time goes the expected pump in price because of the burning doesn't became into reality. Many project doesn't realize that demand and supply won't work unless there's a true demand on their token. They are simply burning tokens hoping that something got a glimpse of possible price increase. Shiba Inu is known for its aggresive burning but the we don't see massive increase on their token price, it became stable at a certain range at best.

When it comes to prices, it fluctuates quite a bit and that is a natural thing, and sometimes burning is a trigger to maintain the hype for a project that they are doing can be trusted because burning is always there to limit project supply, this can be said to be manipulation and can be said to be a action to reduce supply of circulating tokens in order to get a price boost on the remaining supply of tokens, so it depends where you look at it, because this perception can go two different directions if you don't have the same mindset, Like BNB always burns every year, and things it will certainly encourage people to buy the coin, and have the thought that one day there will be a shortage of coins which will certainly put more demand pressure on the coin.

Logically if we look at the burning issue we have to say that yes burning can have a positive effect on the value of a token. Because it reduces the supply and increases the demand and the increase in demand is more important to increase the price. But if your supply is too high then I would think this burning process is just a show to attract some stupid investors. However, it also depends on how much burning will be done here. But as usual answer I would say yes burning has some positive impact

I can't really point out if it's a good thing or a bad thing, I feel like it's going to be something to care about in the end but not in a good way or a bad way, I am not sure about that yet. Just make sure you follow it up, that's the point basically.

If it's a meme project than most likely result is that it will not be that much of a big deal at all, it will not really matter to you at all, it should be important to point out. I know that it will get some others to change the understanding of burn though, because BNB has burn too and that one is better. To be fair they burn what they have and not what's on the market anyway so it's not really that much quickly changing, but at least gets rid of some of the supply.

Perhaps, it was an attractive doings of these developers and promise positive results but as I see those projects that are into burning tokens, it looks like it only has less impact to nothing. Understanding the results, it means that burning tokens is no longer an effective way to increase price but for these developers to create a project that is playing an important roles in the crypto space. It doesn't matter if the supply is huge because it pumps when the demand is high and so the price.

That's certainly true, mate. It's not about burning a coin's supply, but rather making it useful for the whole wide world. Without utility, I don't see crypto going anywhere soon. You can see why "meme" coins ultimately fail because of their speculative nature. They're only driven by hype, instead of concrete results that would change our world for the better.

That said, don't underestimate the power of burning on a coin or token's market price. It positively influences market prices, making the crypto asset more valuable over time. Depending on how much of the supply is circulating, the effects can be either immediate or take a longer time than usual. It's up to you to choose the right coins by doing your own research. As long as you don't invest more than what you can't afford to lose, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts ;D

It was before as I witness huge changes in its price but for now, it somewhat looks different. That is why I don't want to believe such words saying that it helps to a price increase because what I see is that it doesn't matter much many is the total supply, as long as it was a legit project, it gradually grows from time to time. In fact, so many projects have a huge market cap but still, they are able to pump during the bull season which means that they really have the potential despite it's number.

Sometimes this is just a counter measure done by a dying project so that they can revive it back and maybe try to gain the attention of their old investor then convince them that there's something good to happen on their project and use that bull season as their main tool to hype the people following their project. Hard to find legit project nowadays and maybe for now its good to buy and trade any of those new crypto while they are in bullish condition since its hard to get stress when price drop came or it became a total scam.

Or better yet, this is the strategy of those projects who want to attract naive buyers.
Saying they are burning, to reduce its supply and so it will possibly contribute to its price increase.
However, we should take note that the increase may not only come from the decreasing supply.
But in most cases, it is how the team is progressing with their actual developments on the project.
Without visible movement on the platform, hard to expect a gradual increase on its price in the market.
Burning some of their supply will only help if they will also do some action on their coin itself.

I know that in economics there is a law called supply and demand. So both are important for a coin to have a good value. Indeed, so many weak projects are highlighting this burning mechanism feature, and it's getting common already in the eyes of the public so it wasn't appealing anymore. It was still different if the projects has a unique use case. This makes them stand out even if they have a good number of supply.

A good project that has a burning mechanism aren't still exempted from a dump because it's a natural event of the market. The only way for a weak project to get a demand is if they have lots of budget to market their coin and to do some market manipulations.

The practice of burning for less popular cryptocurrencies, often referred to as "shitcoins," has sparked debates in the cryptocurrency community. Burning involves reducing the circulating supply of a token, theoretically leading to increased scarcity and potentially driving up its value. However, the effectiveness of burning largely depends on the underlying project's reputation and the presence of significant holders.

For a burning strategy to be impactful, the cryptocurrency project should have a solid reputation and a clear value proposition. Without these elements, burning may not have a meaningful impact on the token's price or utility. Additionally, if there are not enough significant holders or users actively participating in the project, the burning process might lack the desired effect.

A pertinent example is the case of Binance Coin (BNB), which has undergone burning events. Some skeptics argue that these burning events haven't resulted in significant price movements or utility enhancements for the token. They believe that burning in such cases could be perceived as more of a marketing tactic to generate hype and attract attention to the project, rather than a genuine mechanism for improving the token's fundamentals.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of burning as a strategy for lesser-known cryptocurrencies depends on various factors, including the project's reputation, the size and activity of its user base, and the overall value proposition it offers. Without a solid foundation and significant community support, burning might indeed be seen as an ineffective and superficial measure to create excitement around a particular token.

Oh, i forgot to add a token that at least to me makes most sense when it comes to burning. And that is UNU SED LEO (aka LEO). It differs from other tokens in a sense that fundamentals of it are centralized by design. Technically it doesn't have a limit on how far it could rise in price, because it's a token from Bitfinex and they are committed to buy it from the market with their exchange profits and burn it. They are very open about it and doing it all the time,

Difference on BNB burning is that binance has commited to burn 50% of the tokens while Bitfinex is going all the way with 100%. Now obviously they can't buy 100% as at some point the price rises so much when people set higher and higher sell orders when everyone who wanted to sell cheap has sold cheap.

Imho that's most positive tokenomics, even though it's based on the activity of centralized exchange.

This is the way to divert the minds of the investors thinking that the price went high after but unfortunately, there is nothing new things happen as the price remains low. That is why I believe that a burning strategy is a fake promise that most of us had become a victim to such words. We realized that it was not the burning mechanism that can change the direction of the project but it was the potentiality and market contribution. Because no matter what the developers do, if it was shitcoin, it remains low value.

well good thing nowadays not that many people are actually getting tricked by such trickery, majority of meme coin nowadays even if they tried to speak about it in their twitter about burning no one gives a damn really.
many already figured out that its just gimmick to attract attention and nothing more thats why even after the burning the coin just stuck.
the thing about these coin burning in general is that sometimes they are not so significant only burning some portion of coin, moreover when the devs could literally unlock some coins that might inflates the total circulating supply making the burning was rather kind of pointless, will instead make it looks like dumb af.

Burning is one way of reducing the supply of the token.  So in the essence of supply and demand, burning is an artificial way of reducing the supply making the sell pressure to be eaten out while the demand pressure is increasing.

This also shows that the developer believes that the token in circulation is too much so there is this need for them to intervene and cut the existing supply.  I think rather then burning the token supply, the dev should work their ass out in creating use case for the token.  It will also give a better result if aside from burning tokens, the developer are creating partnership to different company and individual in utilizing the use case of the token.  After all, adoption pushes through when there is a need for an individual to have the tokens in their wallet.

That it is since some dumb buyers will think about that the pump will come next after the burning of tokens happen. They didn't know that this is just a band aid solution by devs so that they can attract new buyers to acquire there tokens.

Investors should see if there's relevance regarding on the devs action do since if they see that the volume is almost nothing and they do that activity then provably they are just fishing another investors and scam them. Maybe a buy back option with huge money used is good action since from this there's a chance that pump might happen.

Yes, in terms of reducing the supply tokens that are circulating and pressing to encourage price movements, this is effective if the burned tokens have a large amount of the total supply made.
Of course, if you only rely on burning tokens, this will not have a significant affecting demand movement, because the demand is based on the use case on the token itself, which makes a reason for people to buy tokens for their needs in accessing the ecosystem offered in the project, but if it is only limited burning without an increase in utility in the token will make a temporary increase, because the use case of a limited token will make the token left, it may have to talk realistically in terms of the project long -term because if only relying on the burning of the token to suppress the movement it will be useless for the future, they can lose money.

Burns have two effects.

• The fastest effect is on projects that are already on the hype. I mean trending projects that are always in the hot coins of every exchange. When such a project is already make a wave, the news of coin burn will surely create more demand because it is believed to trigger limited supply
• Another effect is in the case mentioned by Op. Shiba is no longer trending and no matter how much coins the developers burn, it can only make little/no difference until the bull run approaches. The burning will give holders of the coin the conviction to keep holding and potential buyers the will to buy against the bull run.

If a coin is popular in the market and has a good value and a lot of investors for it, then it is natural that if the token is burned, the value of the token will increase a lot. Because burning will decrease the total supply of the coin and its demand will be high due to which the value of that coin will increase a lot.  But if you are talking about a new coin for which there are no investors, even if that coin is 99% burned, the price of that coin will not increase because there are no investors for it. Burn issue will only work in a positive way when that coin is already popular but I don't think burn issue will do any good for new and shit coins.

Agreed, we were able to see this with Shiba Inu. When the token reached the market the supply was huge and the memecoins unexpected growth made more people interested on it. Further the development is made better and even the more real time usage is provided with acceptance in stores and day to day stores. There is huge fluctuations and to stabilize the market, continuous burning process is involved. If that hadn't done, now price could've gone to the bottom from where it bounced.

Honestly it's a gimmick to cloud the real price and provides little to nothing to the project itself.  If projects are promoting it instead of what they are actually doing than it should be a red flag for anyone.  It's a smoke and mirrors game, stops people from asking what they are really doing with the project.

Burning mechanism or utility of a token is good for the tokenomics of a project. As we all know and as cited by other users, it is meant to lessen the supply amd for demand to increase. However, not because a platform has a burning mechanism,  success will be guaranteed already. A burning mechanism would work well if there would be a continuous demand with a particular token. I saw this with one of the famous play to earn game last year. They managed to create a burning mech for that game but it seemed to be too late to still gather the interest of their players therefore timing is crutial for the team behind a project. Eveything's too much wouldn't result to a good one and if things won't be managedbeveryrike jansss

The rug will come when everyone believes in what is called Burn Token. Even though that doesn't guarantee that the token can be trusted. Many scammers engage in this kind of practice in anticipation of new users asking how the project is progressing. Don't believe in new tokens that don't have a strong community, let alone promotions that you can't rely on. it's better to choose a token that is old and currently bearish, that's better.

Indeed. If the project only focuses on the burning program without developing the project itself, burning won't impact anything. When there is no demand on the market, lowering the number of the tokens will be nothing. But if the project grows constantly and they also have a good trading volume on the market, burning program will be helpful. So, it actually depends on the quality of the project and how the demand on the market.

Burning never guarantees the quality of the project. It is only the way to lower the number of total supply of the tokens. To know the quality of the project, we need to analyze many things on the project. Check the quality of the developers, how strong the community, how the market caps & daily trading volume, and check the partnerships are some of parts of the project what we need to analyze carefully.

despite the fact that those scammers are generally using this burning of token for somekind of marketing stunt, its good thing to know that majority didn't really fall into this trickery.
even though there are many shitcoins that created some kind of burning event but majority just don't care, they don't give a damn in regard of the coin thats trying reducing their supply through the means of burning.
instead, these coins are slowly heading towards their certain delisting in the future.
its just how it is with crypto space nowadays, even burning token thats supposed to be used for retaining the value is used for marketing stunt.

Yes it is useful topic and it will be very helpful for newbies. I think token burn is big news for a coin/token. When they burn token then creat positive hype for that token in market and many investor want to invest on that token.Token burn event when occur then then token crisis creat so then price increase. We know every products price depend on demand and supply, So when supply were decrease then demand increase and price were high. Roughly we can tell burning creat positive impact and a attract buyers. So i can tell Really Burn helps Token in positive way there has no doubt.

If the token supply is burning, that means the total supply will be reduced. It will increase the value of the token. Also, price value depends on the news of the crypto market and the utility of the token.

Yes, it is natural that when the quantity of something decreases and the demand is high, the price of that item goes up.  If you look at Bitcoin for example, the  of Bitcoin is demand several times greater than the supply .  And this is why the value of Bitcoin is huge. and we care about Bitcoin that much. So token burn can help increase the price of that token, it is not impossible and it is a very effective strategy to increase the value of any token in the market.

Its crucial to use it whether demand is strong or low, or perhaps somewhere in between, as was the case with the infamous play-to-earn game from the previous year, which, depending on your perspective, either didnt work or may have worked to some extent.

Everything in moderation, even too much or too little, appears to be a wise course of action, at least in some situations. Unless it is, it wont be good if there is too much or too enough. As a result, timing might be critical or inconsequential, and the project team must understand precisely when to use this method and when to avoid it. Therefore, the timing must be appropriate, albeit it need not necessarily be.

I still think that people do not understand the value of it, but there are also unlimited supply ones that burn as well which makes no sense to me at all. When there is a limited supply and you do a buyback and you burn the ones you buy, that really makes all the worth in the world.

But, when you have an unlimited supply that constantly grows and minted 10 million new coins this year and you burned a million of it, the result may not be how you want it to be. This is why I believe that it's going to be something quite important to challenge, it will take some time for sure, not going to be same at all. I hope that it gets to a point where it will not be that simple, and we are going to end up making sure that it can be improved further.

Burning or not, it wont really be always that signifies that Altcoins price or its value would really be climbing up. Even if it does have that Trillion or Quadrillion supply but it do turns out that it does have actual utility or relevance then it would really be just that sufficient. It all matters with the utility because no matter how hard you do burn if the demand is depleting or the value is really going south then it would be pointless.
Unlike on having that continuous or increasing demand and having that humongous supply then it would really be just that going up despite of those huge supply numbers. It would be always varying or depending on the demand in the end of the day and this is something that you should instill into your mind. Burning does help if the demand is high and the supply is being cut but well its not actually that very common
nowadays unlike into those old years where burning is really that relevant. Now, it is really just that simply being ignored.

the thing with unlimited supply coin that did burning is simple, you just see their circulating supply, if over the course of the year the burning could somewhat mantains balance and even could reduce the circulating supply and there's many demand for the coin itself, then I guess the burning does helps in raising the value.
other than that, it depends on the coin itself when its got unlimited supply, ethereum is unlimited supply but the burning mechanism is there to keep the circulating supply from flooding the markets.
it would be silly if it is some random coin with unlimited supply that allows the devs themselves to mint whatever they want.

Investors and holders who don't know about burning mechanism, demand burning as if token their invested altcoin will skyrocket after that but the process isn't working thus way. But after announcing burning, people start investing that altcoin and so price get increased. It depends of that altcoin how they'll take manage to take advantage throughout this process. Although memecoin with huge supply, burning are different, it Doesn't impact but team create hype by themself based on burning news. Shiba buring doesn’t really Impact but after burned shiba inu from vitalik buterin, effected a lot on its price which is rarely happened

Yeah, I really agree that burning tokens where there is an unlimited supply of it does not make the change.  It is like artificially slowing the inevitable..  the value of the token going to worthlessness.  Many developers make this a buzzword in order to attract investors but if we really look on what is needed, token burn is actually not needed at all, if the developer is able to create several use cases for the token, capping the token supply and implement a good marketing strategy, the value of the token will definitely increase.  Token burning is a lazy way for the developer to artificially increase the value of the token in a capped token supply project.

I think second one makes more sense, because if you do burn a lot then it will have a good result, the problem is that if you do not burn a lot and just a little bit, then it's not going to matter even during the bull run. Remember, this is a token that has a ton of supply, so when you burn just a little bit of it, that doesn't change anything. I am not saying lets burn 50% of all the supply, that would be crazy and they can't do that, but burn a lot more than that to have a result as well.

It does convince people to hold, but also when there are more printed every day than what you burn, that doesn't really change much neither. So keep on burning, and burn a lot and have a daily burn if you must but I would say save it and burn big amount all at once and drop the supply amount significantly.

After the sharp burn, there is no guarantee that price will compensate it. What happens in this case is that market capitalization decreases. It's a very importrant metric for the visibility of a project. Obviously, I don't count in something like hype.

Burning of a token is very important especially when for tokens that are using the staking mechanism. Many projects are always burning there tokens so that it will have more value in the market. Apart from that, we all want to make money from the market with good profits. The burning mechanism is based on the team and how frequently the burn there token to make it have more resistance against the bear and shoot higher more.

As much as it's important, there are times that it didn't do anything to some of those projects that have done it. Well, that's for those projects that have little market capitalization and liquidity. Even if they will burn their tokens for as much as they can if there is no demand, the value of their token remains the same or might even go lower. That's why doing it frequently is like a promo for them to inform everyone that they're doing it to the token so it's going to be interesting. It's helpful but not to all that does it.

Actually buring mechanism works in different way than most of people think. As a Result, "news of token burn" create a hype which effects on people mind in positive way. If a token doesn’t have any market demand of investment, then burn can do nothing. When a project want to create bazz, then they use this strategy for people to attract. But if a token always has market demand and team burn their token then Supply will be reduced and token pump. vitalik buterin burn was biggest and most aggressivw for shiba, which made shiba pump. If anyone can do such aggressive burn (must be a potential demanded altcoin), then that will be also pumped, in my opinion

Indeed, the news of burning tokens is interesting news, where many investors will be interested in investing in the hope that the token price will increase after burning, this is a form of promotion to attract investors so that their projects will be busy. You can imagine that if most of the tokens were in market circulation, this would certainly make activity more dense and this could attract other investors to join

The exhilaration felt by the market after burning tokens. Amidst the fervor of excitement, a considerable number of people fail to pause and evaluate the fundamental dynamics. If there is no real market demand, a burn is like shouting into space. While many ventures try to make a splash with burning, astute investors need to see through the pretense. In addition, the Buterin maneuver was brilliant when it came to burns. However, it begs the question: Was it just the burn, or was there a confluence of timing, market emotion, and demand?

Comparatively speaking, if a new token joins the fight and tries a burn like that, you should carefully examine its underlying components. A burn-driven pump is one thing, but keeping that momentum going is a whole other animal. The important things are underneath the surface: long-term prospects, project feasibility, and underlying value. While burns may pique curiosity, substance assures longevity.

The main intention of token burning is to reduce the supply. Ideally, when supply is reduced, demand increases automatically, and thus the price. Having said so, this will work only when demand is appropriate. For example, if a token has a demand of 2–3 million tokens and the tokens left after burn are in billions, there is no effect. Just knowing the logic, people are thinking that every burn will help increase the price, but in most cases, this is not the case.

I think burn helps somehow but Its all about that token or the coin which is gonna burn. It depends on that altcoin's quality, market demand and manay thing. Burn won't help you team burn a shitcoins cause it has no demand. And how a token could pump if nobody willing to buy that token? But if it comes to potential altcoin, price will pump after announcement of burning. Cause it doesn't matter how burn mechanism work but people will crazy buy that potential altcoin which could be reason behind pump. Something influencers also promote and do burning announcement for pumping token thus way.

Burn is meant to reduce the total supply which should in return (maybe not instantly) influence the price of the token. Maybe the reason why you haven’t seen any results so far is because the project involved didn’t burn enough. Imagine if Bitcoin could be burnt and 10 Million Bitcoin gets burnt, the value of the remaining ones will increase because then, they are the last of their kind. But what difference does it make when you burn just 1BTC ? So the amount of tokens/coins burnt has a lot to do in the effect of the burn. Also, you can liken burning of tokens/coins as burning of actual money because these are tokens/coins you could have sold and cashed out, but then, it’ll continue being in circulation.

some shitcoin devs could be burning 99% of their total supply and it won't change a thing because its a shitcoin that doesn't have demand but its different if its ethereum that burns 50% of its total supply the value would be instantly doubled, thats the thing with burning, it requires the coin to be at least having sufficient demands first before it actually can works.
as of now, I rarely see some devs burning coins though I don't know why it was massive marketing strategy back then when many shitcoin was still a thing and get invested heavily, the devs trying to make this sense of scarcity that could make people eager to invest in their shitcoin but later on losing so many of its value.
in a nutshell, its not really a effective marketing strategy anymore.

It's all about supply and demand. Reduce the supply demand goes up along with the price.  but you gotta annihilate a chunk large enough to really shake things up. and  otherwise its just a drop in the bucket that no one notices.  So maybe we just need more bonfires going to make coin-burning actually do something.  Though at some point destroying all the coins defeats the purpose don't it? Gotta strike a balance. But at the same time, it doesn't matter how many coins you burn if there is no demand. Many shitcoins nowadays use the burn process as a marketing ploy, to attract more attention from the community. Many of them fail because at the end of the day, they are still shitcoins.

You are asking about the burn buzz word and how it affects successful tokens. Shiba Inu is burning tokens a lot but it is important to know that token burning can effect in a different depends on the project and its goals.
Token burning means they are just want to reduce the supply or you can say the number of tokens. And one more purpose to butn the tokens is to increase the demand by shorting the supply.
But some of the tokens or coins which gain up trend in process by burning. As I mentioned above this is on the project, how much it is strong and why they are burning tokens.
You gave an example of Shiba Inu they are burning much tokens but I didn't see any significant gain in Shiba. If they are burning so I think it's price should increase but it is not increasing and I think the reason is too much supply of the tokens. Still they are burning let's see what will happen in future.

Token burn will take some token out of circulation. This has two effects on the community one is that investors consider it positive news and rush to buy the token so that they can make profits from the price impact. Another effect is that some token will stay out of circulation forever so the token holder will get a higher value when holding the same amount of token because the amount of token decreased from circulation but its marketcap doesn't. So the price needs to be adjusted accordingly which shoots the price up.

The burning mechanism can help a token to become strong and withstand bear if this seems to go wrong. Some many tokens that is built on Proof-Of-Stake need to be burn or else the worse might happened. There are many crypto projects that is been built on Proof-Of -Stake and the only thing we can do to help the projects is to keep staking it apart from buying and holding. This help the liquidity of the token to be strady and keep going bull if there is no mass selling or dumping.

If you are afraid to risk your money in such tokens, then do as I did. My opinion is that it is better to invest not your own money, but those that won for example in Cash Giving Day tournament there the conditions are very simple and everyone can get a small amount for future investments

I have thought of other things on this one when you have said that people shouldn't invest with their own money. Well, I've thought of investing others money but no. It's better to invest only with your spare money from wherever it come from. Not everyday there are tournaments and not everyone is able to participate into these type of tournaments and that's why they don't have that type of money but if it's about the spare, many of us do have.

It will only help if the token itself has some solid use case that can survive with the competition.
But if they will rely in the burning aspect of growing its use case, then I think, it will easily go down later on.
This is why most meme tokens have short lifespan because they have no reason to exist to begin with.
They are only relying from naive traders that will join their market and hoping that at some point they can cash out from it.

they are shitcoins, and with low demand at that, if it was shitcoin that was fancied by so many peolpe like for example some meme coin like doge coin that have burning plus gettinh shilled by elon then the burning would be massive despite just a shitcoin, its matter of demand, the point of burning is that, so it could double the existing value of certain coin due to high demand and limited supply but that won't work with coin that not many truly demanded like shitcoin without community, etc.
and indeed so many shitcoins are just using it for marketing ploy, trying to give that image of scarcity, but people with normal mind will definitely know at first glance that the burning of these shitcoin with low demands doesn't mean anything.

Exactly.

Those legitimate projects will be helped by burning their tokens and that's going to be visible through their value and pricing. But for the tokens that don't even have a sense to own, they won't just get the attention and help from their own markets.

It is wrong to think that when a project, like any project does burning, the value of their token will increase. No. It doesn't go like that, there's a market explanation that it is not like what people are thinking.

In some way we can say token burn helps, but you can only see the effect of this burn only on tokens that has potential and is relevant for continuity in the crypto space, any crypto currency with out a future does not feel the impact of token burn and often use it as a stretegy to collect more money from investors as they promise to burn huge part of the supply, even at the very burn their is still no effect or good result the price still remains the same or even dip more as the demand of the coins is still no good to make a pump.
Where else, token burn plays huge part in some crypto currency as immediately their is a burn you see a huge pump so those who entered before the token burns makes good profit that is why it is now deployed by most shit coins with the sole aim to scam more money from investors.

We have numerous projects in the market and we might never know which of them are abandoned and the ones that are promising for good road map. We just have to apply our techniques towards these tokens and balance in well structure spot to triggered investment in these tokens. We have legitimate projects in the market that's waiting patiently for the bull season, and some might not also survive the bear season. Burning of these tokens are done for the aim to pump the coin to the moon, probably one of the few ones will be targeted by top whales and some will not make it up to the list.

That is not true because there are ways to find out a project is abandoned or not. Just look at their social media and their github commit. If they are active in the social media with various events and update they are active and if their github repo has frequent commit, then the dev is still working in the project. These are some good signs that can give us confirmation that the project is not abandoned. Another thing you can keep an eye on is their partnership update. A active project frequently updates their community with partnership announcements.

depending on burning the token, if it only burns a little but the total token supply is not comparable, there will be no change or movement in the volume. There are several projects that I see that are just marketing tricks to attract investors, so you have to be careful in looking for clear information about the project

in the long term, this is, of course, a working tool to reduce the total number of coins or tokens in circulation; the fewer there are, the easier it is to raise their price, which is also important. But this will most likely work more with large projects that are aimed at long-term work and have profit for redemption of tokens.