token supply

[Google+]

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

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

[Bttzed03]

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

[aryana42]

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

 

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

[ATSgrowth]

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

[FireBallex]

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

[Dickiy]

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

[FLHippy]

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

[crossabdd]

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

[nicolas1979]

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

[sjbi]

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

[Latviand]

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

 

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

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

[Dickiy]

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

 

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

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

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

[Bonwin]

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

 

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

[SquallLeonhart]

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

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

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

[DaMut]

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

[nutriagrigia]

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

[damar09]

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

[Xcode7]

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

 

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

[bison]

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

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

[tsaroz]

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

 

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

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