token supply

[imutlinda]

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

[1714692039]

1714692039

[StephenieDuong]

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

[luckyflop]

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, ...?

 

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

[ven7net]

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, ...?

 

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

[noorman0]

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

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

[damar09]

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.

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

[btcdie]

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

[Spider A4]

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, ...?

 

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

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

[CryptoOtopusso]

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

[JahriMeayer]

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

[ChronoLite]

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, ...?

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

[hello_good_sir]

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, ...?

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

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

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

[passwordnow]

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

[coin-investor]

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, ...?

 

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

[#Darren]

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

[xiboothrezi]

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.

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

[Crypto5060]

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

[dark08]

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, ...?

 

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

[yansen]

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

[asriloni]

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

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