Token burning

[SheriffEl]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

[JeromeTash]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

[ife2020]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Lets just say that the process of token burn is to reduce the total supply of the token, and equally create some sorts of hype for the project, that may resort to increase in value.

But in truer sense, only a newbie can be wowed by the prospect of a token burn. Some projects burn their token and dumps further, while some burns and improves a little.
It actually depends on the project, does it drive demand ?

[lobo13hf]

Just remind you if you must see how good the coin based on usability of the token. All of the deflation tokens are garbage tokens and these tokens can be called as scam token. I think that there was no more explanation about that because deflationary is a complete garbage idea. I just see more and more deflationary token scammed more and more people.
This is a crap idea.

[Akiko]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

The price of coin depend on the demand even they burn all of the supply it will never change .
Burning is a way to only reduce the supply in the market but it never help to have the demand , it will only help if they have a way to make people aware about the tokens and increase the community they have and make more promotion so there will be more people buy it.

[Cvetik56]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.
It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

It is totally useless thing for a new token to do, since it kills the demand which is not high for new token.
However I find it quite useful for high demand coin/token since the supply will be lower than demand and the price will be straight higher

[btc_angela]

This has been a practice ever since, projects burn their token to make it limited and try to push the price to the next level. However, if the project is doomed, then there is no way it can salvage just because they are going to burn. I think if I'm not mistaken, Binance do burn their tokens, I think it is one of the most successful projects even to use this strategy to make the price even higher. But for shitcoins? Nah, if there are no demand it will simply die, no matter how many tokens they are going to burn.

[jossiel]

Whether they burn, there is no guarantee that the token they have will create a huge pump or volume.

The community will decide for its volume and that's through the investors who will actually buy the token. So, if there's no buyer, who will be the taker? none.

If there's a bunch of token and sellers then there's no buyer, it's worthless whether they burn 99.9% of their entire supply.

[Bonwin]

I have seen a lot of projects did regular burning and yet no impact. Some use it to deceive the community, to think they meant well and yet failed. Gone are the days, when people were deceived with such strategy. Well, some succeeded and got their tokens pumped, but in the end, the team ended up dumping.
They use it to actualize their targeted price(s). Afterwards, you might see the token go down to zero or almost.
No one is going to fall for such gimmicks.
If you say you want to burn, well good, but show us what you have got, that product that people are in need of and that will add value to your tokens with more demands.

[DimitrisLodirogas]

Won't help if there's no demand for token. Which project in particular did you have in mind?

[Questat]

Token burning is only significant for popular projects with big investors as the reduce of token will result to an increase of value in the long run.
People above is correct, token burning is useless when there is no demand for coin.

[masterrex]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

I think it depends on the tokens use case that will create demand, deflationary tokens are not bad if it was backed with any product or services or we just simply saying a uniques use case, Burning of tokens automatically is a useful move to reduce the total supply every time there is a purchase of its product or to use it services. but if those deflation based token projects are empty or not supported with any product/services well it's useless so don't invest in it.

[Sterbens]

Most of now burning tokens from not many requests so the results of tokens remain shitcoin and are not useful anymore on the exchange, I think it is not beneficial if some projects do that kind of thing especially new projects will certainly not have significant results or demand becomes high volume I do not maybe.

Large projects burn tokens so this will have a big effect because it will reduce the total supply of available.

[Novatech8]

Burning tokens is only effective if the token is useful and have high demand too, few new projects only have this burning feature to offer and today they are suffering on exchanges due to low trading volume, if a token is demanding and burning takes place the value will surely go up

[joseyphil82]

Most new projects that implemented burning ability are bad projects especially deflation tokens like Ethplode and the rest, they have no real use case than the deflation ability, how will this be useful for the masses? Deflation and burning ability are good but only better for projects that have good use case

[Akiko]

Burning tokens is only effective if the token is useful and have high demand too, few new projects only have this burning feature to offer and today they are suffering on exchanges due to low trading volume, if a token is demanding and burning takes place the value will surely go up

because they are only creating the idea  of less supply increase the price but actually this is not how it works.
Since they have no experience in the market they do not have any idea what will be the things to help the price increase if they this burning method.

They are just using the same idea to other's that having it, but they dont review the price of the tokens in the market and check if what is the real problem having a burning scheme.

[bgaf]

One good example of this is Binance project. They have quarterly burn tokens as part of their plan. Some projects have burned their coin for inappropriate approach. Supposedly the project should increase its value during the burning but the reverse is happening.

Most new projects that implemented burning ability are bad projects especially deflation tokens like Ethplode and the rest, they have no real use case than the deflation ability

Ive seen a lot of these projects but to be honest, they just added some worthless on the market. Ethplode has no use case and simply their want is rolling of funds through trading.

[coin-investor]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

In the first place, they should not or stopped creating a huge supply of their token, no investors will be attracted to projects that have a huge supply while they have a useless platform, it's not about supply anymore it's more on the platform and if the platform has a good usage to the community.

[Diamond_Darrell]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

But if everything is fine, and with a good information background with progress in and compliance with the roadmap, then burning coins does its job. It all depends on the seriousness of the project)

[canovan25]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Hey. I think this is just a futile trend. Burning does not bring any real benefits to the ecosystem. The only reason this operation is useful is for speculators - for them this operation is neutral or profitable. It is rational to use it only if the coin has collateral in the form of real assets (After burning, the value of each coin grows, which is a positive result for the user).

[Kunnu]

Burning a particular amount of tokens/coins is a nice way to make the tokens/coins more valuable but this strategy is worthy for the projects which are getting successful and leaving good impact but I don't think that the burning procedure will bring positive results for the projects which are unsucessful or not preforming well so it will be absolutely useless attempt.

[Wysi]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token buring is a thing of past which does not work anymore as its usually done to reduce the supply of the useless tokens assuming it will increase the price but when there is no demand at all for a token regardless of token burn it fails to capitalise. Recently stellar XLM did the same thing and they hardly got any benefit of out it.

[enhu]

Since 2016, there had been coins which developers already have burning token system. ICONOMI (ICN) was just one of them but look how far they are now?

Its not like coins have fixed price that its cap will be divided among all coins, it doesn't work that way. So its useless to burn some coin. However, it there will be demands then scarcity will be experienced and that its holder will sell their coin for higher price.

[Dart18]

They swap and then they burn.

ICO company owner sometimes think their tokens will be bought at large amounts so they swap it 1:1000 ratio.
Then, when they see that it is a foolish idea then they will burn it.

Some don't. Why? They started with billions of tokens already thinking it will make them millionaires. But it didn't happen.
They may have wanted to sell it cheap but still with lack or marketing it failed.
So, they burn some afterwards.

[iamaruf]

This method token burning was working two years ago, now it's not working.if the token get demand and team burned the token it will help to rise the price.Actually price depends on total supply but that token should be demandable. Less token and coin s legit and have demand then high chance to rise the price

[cytpoway121]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Hey. I think this is just a futile trend. Burning does not bring any real benefits to the ecosystem. The only reason this operation is useful is for speculators - for them this operation is neutral or profitable. It is rational to use it only if the coin has collateral in the form of real assets (After burning, the value of each coin grows, which is a positive result for the user).

Ideally, there are different variance to token burning.
Because project A conducted a token burn and experienced a surge increase in value and price does not mean that if project B conducts a token burn, it will definitely experience same.

It is applicable for both project developers and investors, to take note that before token burn, there has to be a special product in place that can drive necessary demand.

[kooboat]

Most token events are undertaken by projects to preserve the value of tokens. While the burning of tokens are meant to increase the confidence of holders, some projects that claim to have some burn tokens still end up bringing up almost useless tokens or coins. Perhaps, it is about time, project develops review the process involved in burning tokens to safeguard the value.

[htsy585]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token burning right from the early days of ico has been part of various things project developers do proposed to gain the interest of the investor as the whole concept of token burning is geared at increasing the demand of the token when listed on trading exchanges. However, since then it has been a two way things as some project have been able to increase their demand and the tokens price through it, such a project is binace and at the same time majority of projects found it unsuccessful.

[inanilujimi]

altcoin has done a lot of things like this but it doesn't have much impact on the project.
in essence, in my opinion things like this can no longer attract investors to get interest and can pump the value of altcoin.

[Kupid002]

altcoin has done a lot of things like this but it doesn't have much impact on the project.
in essence, in my opinion things like this can no longer attract investors to get interest and can pump the value of altcoin.

Yes it will never help , they just get this idea from other project that failed also to make thier token valuable and in the end no supporters want to support it .

Instead of focusing in burning why not having a good promotion to attract user's traders to participate in thier project. They need demand not reducing the supply , the idea of low supply high demand will not accurate now in this market when they are many project failed.

[Winscosinally]

Tokens like Okex token and bnb created more value right after they burned some of their max token supply but this was accomplished easily because the tokens are very useful and their is more demand for the tokens too, If they are crap tokens the burn won't have effect

[cahbagus555]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token burn in my opinion is good for both parties both the developer team and for investors. With the reduction in the total supply available in the market, it is expected that prices will rise and for the developer team, the marketcap value will also go up so that the company's value will get better.

[DDante]

I like token burning feature in coins, it helps the token value to increase but it's not meant for all projects, some are better with max supply because of their use cases and some projects already have too many max supply e.g 100billion or 1 billion, burning will definitely reduce max supply

[tvplus006]

Just remind you if you must see how good the coin based on usability of the token. All of the deflation tokens are garbage tokens and these tokens can be called as scam token. I think that there was no more explanation about that because deflationary is a complete garbage idea. I just see more and more deflationary token scammed more and more people.
This is a crap idea.

Binance has its own BNB coin burned every quarter. This amount is always different and is calculated at the rate of 20% of the profit received by the exchange. This will continue until Binance destroys half of its coins from the original issue. So the BNB coin can not be called garbage.

[SheriffEl]

Whether they burn, there is no guarantee that the token they have will create a huge pump or volume.

The community will decide for its volume and that's through the investors who will actually buy the token. So, if there's no buyer, who will be the taker? none.

If there's a bunch of token and sellers then there's no buyer, it's worthless whether they burn 99.9% of their entire supply.

But it is an added value, dont you agree?

[SheriffEl]

Since 2016, there had been coins which developers already have burning token system. ICONOMI (ICN) was just one of them but look how far they are now?

Its not like coins have fixed price that its cap will be divided among all coins, it doesn't work that way. So its useless to burn some coin. However, it there will be demands then scarcity will be experienced and that its holder will sell their coin for higher price.

I havent heard about that coin yet. However, I believe that if coin has some sort of token burning it's just an added value.

I didnt mean to say that the whole point of coin is that it burns, however its an added value to the coin and product behind it.

[metenjean]

If you find project make token burning I think is good time for investing because they want to increase supply of their coin in the market and make little at the future, maybe some project is brave for burning their token like did by BNB owner coin where they have burn third time for BNB supply.

[Anonylz]

I like token burning feature in coins, it helps the token value to increase but it's not meant for all projects, some are better with max supply because of their use cases and some projects already have too many max supply e.g 100billion or 1 billion, burning will definitely reduce max supply

Token burn may work with some project to increase prices but this does not applies to all project, if you look at project like binance, okex who conduct a token burn periodically did have a positive effect on the price and also because this coin has a use case or lets say there is a demand for them, in this type of cases, token always appears to be effective.
there are other times some project will conduct a token burn yet it didn't help the price of the token/coin
in my opinion, why create a coin then decided to burn it hoping increase price? better to have a decent amount of coin/token will be enough and can maintain a healthy price.

[Thomas-s]

deflation coins and projects in this direction which is very promising. the most important thing is that people really need these coins and they have to use them. inflation is the biggest global problem, and deflationary ideas are very  innovative

[Asuspawer09]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

In my understanding to this token burning is most of the time in the ICO the right fund is always achievable at all times and most of the time the token is not going to get a high price in the market, technically this was just lack of demand in the token why that is happening.

They do this token burning meaning they are reducing the token supply if the token has a high supply the token could easily have a low market price depending in the demand, a token market price always depend in the supply and demand if it doesn't have enough demand or doesn't have the trading volume they could reduce the token supply to somehow make the price of the token higher.

Read here for more information about token burning:
https://cointelegraph.com/explained/token-burning-explained

[MarzoB]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Hi. In my opinion if there is a use for coin/token, burning is a good thing to implement into the project's ecosystem. There are plenty of good examples out there, I like NWC token for example. But is coin or token have no real usage, then it is pointless imo.

[Fallenkeith75]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

I think bomb started the whole "deflationary token" craze. On paper it looks pretty good since you have the supply reducing all of the time, but ultimately most of the copycats turned out to be scams. A lot of the people that participated in the airdrop campaigns made plenty of free eth, but overall most ended up crashing / exit scamming (like claymore did) in the end.

Deflationary features for tokens can be really useful when used in the right context for a project, but for the most part it's a gimmick imo similar to the masternode craze in 2017.

[ballerin and giroud]

The intention of burning coin is to make the scarcity of the coin itslef. The developer may to make a thousand of coins in total and they have to reduce the coin in order to the circulation of the coin will be less and demand of the coin will be much. But if you the project who will do thaf you have to see the coin itself, not all coin who make a decision to burn the coin will have a good price at the end maybe for some project with didn't have a real function then it can't be suggested to hold the coin. You will have a high risk at the end and also you have to see the first intention why they burn the coin.

[jossiel]

Whether they burn, there is no guarantee that the token they have will create a huge pump or volume.

The community will decide for its volume and that's through the investors who will actually buy the token. So, if there's no buyer, who will be the taker? none.

If there's a bunch of token and sellers then there's no buyer, it's worthless whether they burn 99.9% of their entire supply.

But it is an added value, dont you agree?

I agree that it is the purpose of it.

But that doesn't mean that every token burning is always successful. Just look how many projects did that before and most of them failed.

[SaidNurs]

I think this is due to the fact that the coins have little or no interest, so the coin can be said to be no longer functioning, but this deflationary condition is one way or strategy for the value of the coin. Even though it is considered a bad thing in the traditional economy, it is not always a bad thing in the crypto world.

[Ucy]

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

What product exactly? Product people sell for the cryptocoin? Well, if that is what you mean, it could increase the price of the cryptocoin.
If you sell a horse for 1 Bitcoin, and someone sell another cryptocurrency or fiat to buy the horse, that will likely increase the price of Bitcoin if supply remains thesame or decreases. However the effect on price will be little, depending on how popular the coin is.
Buying the crypto somewhere to pay for horse means increase demand for the crypto.

[JeffBrad12]

I think this is due to the fact that the coins have little or no interest, so the coin can be said to be no longer functioning, but this deflationary condition is one way or strategy for the value of the coin. Even though it is considered a bad thing in the traditional economy, it is not always a bad thing in the crypto world.

The purpose of this mechanism to create a self destroy token that will decrease the token supply. The only main purpose of this mechanism to create a deflationary system without considering the real purpose of the existence of the token itself.
I have heard a bunch of the deflationary platforms and they are all failed and i never heard even a single project that is successful right now. This is not even a strategy because the creator is only using a simple formula that less supply and more value.

[shoreno]

I think this is due to the fact that the coins have little or no interest, so the coin can be said to be no longer functioning, but this deflationary condition is one way or strategy for the value of the coin. Even though it is considered a bad thing in the traditional economy, it is not always a bad thing in the crypto world.

The purpose of this mechanism to create a self destroy token that will decrease the token supply. The only main purpose of this mechanism to create a deflationary system without considering the real purpose of the existence of the token itself.
I have heard a bunch of the deflationary platforms and they are all failed and i never heard even a single project that is successful right now. This is not even a strategy because the creator is only using a simple formula that less supply and more value.

still can be call a strategy because this is one of the ways they think to attract people  because we know that investors foccus on less supply coins  but less supply isnt the only think that they should look for  .  

so what if the team promise that thier coin have a low supply but its prospects is bad  ? still useless becuase that can still fail   . i also agree on the user above   , i heard the other purpose of burning was to throw away the coin is you are an owner and you think its useless .

[bitgolden]

It does create a lot more scarcity but at the same time do we really know if it is for the better when they are the ones who printed it and gave it away? I do not understand this new version of coin offering that basically premined before and there is no more mining and the creators simply give it away and then they say they are buying back and burning.

Well, if you didn't mined it all and just let the people get as much as they can, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with, we wouldn't need burning.

So, it is the people who created the problem that is also offering a solution, is it a solution? Sure it is, but what if we didn't had the problem to begin with so we didn't need the solution as well. It is that simple to not even deal with the excess coins.

[Crypto_lion]

This is a system created to reduce the supply of the token in the open market there by trying to increase the price. While it's a nice idea to increase the price this must be accompanied by some good product and good token economics which demand the use of token and most importantly adoption of the product.

[thesmallgod]

The idea is to reduce the amount of token in circulation thereby creating scarcity that will further increase the value of the token. I have taken part in such projects in the past but the most important thing is that the project must make the token to become demanding. Some of them have a framework for burning the token. Some burn token every month, some quarterly, while some prefer burning yearly

[Byakuga]

If there is huge demand for a token or coin the team won't want to burn, yes, most projects I've seen burn tokens that they failed to sell off in ICO, it's a good trick but it depends on how demanding the token is

[suryapro]

Many programs offered by new projects at this time, including this token burn. but if I may explain a little to you, even though what percentage of coins they will burn will not have an effect, if the product they have is not good and there are NO investors who buy their coins.

[asriloni]

If there is huge demand for a token or coin the team won't want to burn, yes, most projects I've seen burn tokens that they failed to sell off in ICO, it's a good trick but it depends on how demanding the token is

Lol it's better for you to watch what already discussed by OP rather than try to give stranger answer that is not even having correlation with the main topic that already discussed and it's about the creation of the deflationary token which is really annoying for us these days to see so many deflationary tokens have already created.

[Jateng]

If there is huge demand for a token or coin the team won't want to burn, yes, most projects I've seen burn tokens that they failed to sell off in ICO, it's a good trick but it depends on how demanding the token is

Yes, you're it still depends on how people demand the token. If a lot of demand will happen definently the price will be increase. Burning token after the token launch helps them to secure that price will the same as they expected. But some projects come short after the launch of their ICO or even the project became success. It's always depends on concept and purpose of the project if the project will continue to grow and get valued. Burning is just additional kickoff for them to give value to the price

[SistaFista]

Token burning is a good way to increase the value of the coin, but it will requires more money for the team to buy the coin from the market.
Usually the token burning will happening if the project have enough funds to buyback the token and burn them.

[Fallenkeith75]

Token burning is a good way to increase the value of the coin, but it will requires more money for the team to buy the coin from the market.
Usually the token burning will happening if the project have enough funds to buyback the token and burn them.

Isn't it possible for new projects to have pre-allocated funds that can be burnt rather than doing a market buy though?

Also it should be possible to have a deflationary mechanism built in too where each transaction destroys a bit of the supply (i.e, bomb token).

[canovan25]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Hey. I think this is just a futile trend. Burning does not bring any real benefits to the ecosystem. The only reason this operation is useful is for speculators - for them this operation is neutral or profitable. It is rational to use it only if the coin has collateral in the form of real assets (After burning, the value of each coin grows, which is a positive result for the user).

Ideally, there are different variance to token burning.
Because project A conducted a token burn and experienced a surge increase in value and price does not mean that if project B conducts a token burn, it will definitely experience same.

It is applicable for both project developers and investors, to take note that before token burn, there has to be a special product in place that can drive necessary demand.

Demand does not play such a role. The token should not be an exclusively speculative asset. It seems to me that if developers want to pay part of the profit, it is better to buy DAI for profit and send them to all owners of a token or coin, as they do on the regular stock market.

Most token events are undertaken by projects to preserve the value of tokens. While the burning of tokens are meant to increase the confidence of holders, some projects that claim to have some burn tokens still end up bringing up almost useless tokens or coins. Perhaps, it is about time, project develops review the process involved in burning tokens to safeguard the value.

How can burning increase confidence/trust? That's bullshit. The only thing that coin burning can do is increase discussion and get a couple of news headlines on BTT and related forums. It is no secret that most of the founders are market makers for their projects. By burning, they fuel interest in the project and increase cash flow.

[canovan25]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token burning right from the early days of ico has been part of various things project developers do proposed to gain the interest of the investor as the whole concept of token burning is geared at increasing the demand of the token when listed on trading exchanges. However, since then it has been a two way things as some project have been able to increase their demand and the tokens price through it, such a project is binace and at the same time majority of projects found it unsuccessful.

It’s ridiculous. How can this increase demand? For what? Shitty tokens? Do not confuse, burning reduces supply, the result is about the same, but fundamentally these are different processes.

[Chuky92]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

There are things which really determines the value of a project and the first is how the team were able to arrange and develop their ideas; it is this ideas that people will always look at and invest as the case may be. All these deflationary projects, they came in with speed and ceased to exist with speed as well which shows there is something wrong with it.  Also, most projects which have this token burn system are not too valuable as well, thus showing that token burn in whichever mechanism implemented isn't the main thing but the use case in such platform.

[kopisusu]

they burn tokens at special events aimed at increasing the value of tokens in the market but sometimes all of that does not succeed in making prices go up, many projects have done that but the value of tokens has fallen

[doctor877]

It's all about what the project is offering. Reality has set in for all this things and we all have known that it really doesn't matter. What matters is there demand for the project , it's product and are they doing well otherwise the burn wont bring any effect.

[Ezravdb]

Burned tokens are often done by developers to reduce the supply of token. this is also done by the developer / CEO Bnb where every quarter they burn BNB coin. But Fomo does not currently have an impact or influence on price spikes because the current market situation is in turmoil by the corona virus outbreak. Not only burning done but there are some developers who apply staking or lock to get dividends to boost the price of tokens.

[ololajulo]

The token burning seem to be common with exchange coin with high utility but we might likely see transaction burning token in coming months with new projects. Staking and social campaign have also replaced burning in recent projects as well while rewarding holders with coin to conserve token traded whereby managing the token volume trade. I like to see lesser token held by the team in new project irrespective of all these strategies.

[disconnectme]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Binance was the project that made token burning a bog deal in the space but what they are doing now, do not have effect on the price of their tokens. I don't really buy into the idea of token burning because by default some people are going to lose their private keys, some to wrong address and so on. If there is a demand for your token the price would go up.

[ScamViruS]

Hey
I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.
They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.
What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?
Let me know what you think.

Reduce supply and increase demand through token burning. However, this does not apply to all projects. There are huge quantities of coins / tokens, there are some serious projects that have the potential to increase the market price if token burn. And the rest of the useless projects want to create hype in the market by burning their unsold token.

[princerepon]

[snip]

Yeah, it's happen all the time. And yes it's help to bump that coin because those coin will be valuable if their total marketcap are low. Many people like it many are not, sometimes it's work sometimes are not. In my opinion token/coin burn can't stop to go down if the project is valueless. I saw some succeed project also doing that theory for bump their coin.

[Questat]

Reduce supply and increase demand through token burning.

Reduce supply, obviously yes but increase in demand, that does not automatically happens, unless there is a big demand already.

However, this does not apply to all projects. There are huge quantities of coins / tokens, there are some serious projects that have the potential to increase the market price if token burn. And the rest of the useless projects want to create hype in the market by burning their unsold token.

Token burning is a good model for successful project but for projects that does not have a working team, its useless.
Before, people right away hype when they read a news like this without even evaluating the status of the project, and sometimes scammers use this to attract investors.

[SheriffEl]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Binance was the project that made token burning a bog deal in the space but what they are doing now, do not have effect on the price of their tokens. I don't really buy into the idea of token burning because by default some people are going to lose their private keys, some to wrong address and so on. If there is a demand for your token the price would go up.

I'm following this project NWC, that alongside their product, they also offer burning connected to the product. (basically, burning token when they receive paid membership) I think that ecosystems like this have a big potential. Connecting the use of your product with token burning is in my opiniona  very good idea. However, people need to use the product, if not, then its useless.

[Leonardo7]

I don't like the ideology of token burn, it creates HYIP for the project and room for possible price growth but if the project is not offering anything unique, then token burn is just another wasteful strategy and waste of resources. It's better to use the money for a project continues development than a burning fund.

[Lexurdania]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

Agree, if the coin or token has a large transaction, I think token burning will affect the price. In economic mechanism, if the coins or tokens are demanded by the market while the supply is reduced, the price will rise and this can affect the market cap value

[trauchot]

I saw a lot of projects where team burned their tokens and most often it did not bring anything good, but there were cases when the price of the token grew, therefore, the burning of tokens is rather a plus than a minus, so I support such projects that burn their tokens at the right moments.

[BitcoinTurk]

In fact, we need to consider the situation you are talking about as a decrease in supply or a decrease in menstruation. When the token burning is done in a truly transparent way, we can see that this transaction has an effect on the price and the amount of circulating supply decreases. In addition, the investor also makes some purchases due to the announcement of the project team before this event takes place. Since the token burning will affect the price upward regardless of whether it is more or less, the investor is buying with the expectation of profit. With the rising demand in this way, the price rises one level, and then, after the team performs the purchase, another level increases. We can also see that this burning process in the crypto money markets is often used to inflate prices other than the purpose. In addition, since the current supply will decrease after these combustion processes, it is likely that the price will either increase permanently or not go below a certain price level. Generally, project teams perform token burning in order to reduce the number of available supplies and to move upwards with this news.

[Fredomago]

I saw a lot of projects where team burned their tokens and most often it did not bring anything good, but there were cases when the price of the token grew, therefore, the burning of tokens is rather a plus than a minus, so I support such projects that burn their tokens at the right moments.

If for the long term process and the team behind the project is really serious in continuing the developments of their project burning coins is helpful
to earn better value of their coin.
It's depends from developers perspectives and how the supporters will keep waiting for  more progressive developments and usages of their project.

[tvplus006]

I saw a lot of projects where team burned their tokens and most often it did not bring anything good, but there were cases when the price of the token grew, therefore, the burning of tokens is rather a plus than a minus, so I support such projects that burn their tokens at the right moments.

If for the long term process and the team behind the project is really serious in continuing the developments of their project burning coins is helpful
to earn better value of their coin.
It's depends from developers perspectives and how the supporters will keep waiting for  more progressive developments and usages of their project.

I don't understand what difference it makes for an investor to hold 100 coins at a price of $1 or 1 coin with a price of $100. In the first and in the second case it will be $100. Therefore, I have not seen that burning tokens leads to an increase in their price.

[South Park]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

It has been explained many times that such a thing is useless if the coin has not a real use case, if the only attractive aspect of a coin is that from time to time some of its supply is burned then stay away from that coin, as we know there are two aspects that make something valuable, one of them is the supply but the other is the demand and as such even if something is scarce if no one wants it then that something is going to have no value at all despite the small supply.

[DU18]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

There are various projects that burn their tokens or coins after ICO or IEO and usually, it is done to remove unsold tokens from circulation as an incentive for investors or traders participating in the ICO or IEO project, and usually with the burning of tokens of course this will maintain the value of the token be more stable but the most common reason is to increase the value of each token by reducing the existing supply.
In theory, fewer coins available for sale and on the exchange mean that each individual token will be more valuable.
Real example we can see now how BNB coin continues to experience price stability and is far higher than the price of ICO they only 0.1 USD in 2017 ago.

[pacman7331]

The deflationary model was popular in 2019! But the idea was pure garbage, almost every deflation projects are dying or they have zero volume! I have no clue that How can a self-destructive model be good in the crypto industry? I saw Nuke, Blockburn, Fuze, Burst and so on and now they all become shit project!

[Twinkledoe]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

Aside from that, it is useless when there is no real use case for that token. As what others already had mentioned. So even if the team is burning some of their supply but it is only use for trading, I don't think the price will increase with only that reason. It should find a real application in the market to create real demand. I think that's very simple to understand.

[Youghoor]

Burning of tokens is one of the token mechanics that is used to ensure that there is a shortage of tokens in the ecosystem hence increasing demand for the little available. This goes a long way to increase the liquidity of the token hence giving long term holders profits.

[magnum cyber]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

But if everything is fine, and with a good information background with progress in and compliance with the roadmap, then burning coins does its job. It all depends on the seriousness of the project)

nothing is good even if it's a serious project, usually burning tokens doesn't always yield sweet results. I think all of that only depends on market demand. if the token decreases but there is no market demand then the market product also cannot function properly.

[SistaFista]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

But if everything is fine, and with a good information background with progress in and compliance with the roadmap, then burning coins does its job. It all depends on the seriousness of the project)

nothing is good even if it's a serious project, usually burning tokens doesn't always yield sweet results. I think all of that only depends on market demand. if the token decreases but there is no market demand then the market product also cannot function properly.

At least a good project with demand and token burn is better than a project with demand but without token burn.
The most important thing is the project itself indeed, token burn is useless if the project doesnt doing well.
and binance is the good example of a good demanded project with demand and burn.

[Greatchu]

Token burn feature is just a feature for a coin that already has a very good use case, it shouldn't be compared with projects that rely entirely on burning feature, what is more important here is the use case and  burning off tokens is not a good use case

[SheriffEl]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

Aside from that, it is useless when there is no real use case for that token. As what others already had mentioned. So even if the team is burning some of their supply but it is only use for trading, I don't think the price will increase with only that reason. It should find a real application in the market to create real demand. I think that's very simple to understand.

In my opinion, the whole point of burning is that it's connected with the product somehow and that that product has demand. If not, i completely agree that its useless, but in that case also token is useless, so you cant say that burning use useless

[Gudubobo]

Token burn is very essential to effect the value of any coin. A project with high volume of coins in circulation should do a token burn so as to reduce the tokens thereby giving it a high chance to be wanted in the market. Less token, high demand and this will effect the skyrocketing of the coin price.

[South Park]

The deflationary model was popular in 2019! But the idea was pure garbage, almost every deflation projects are dying or they have zero volume! I have no clue that How can a self-destructive model be good in the crypto industry? I saw Nuke, Blockburn, Fuze, Burst and so on and now they all become shit project!

It is not, but truth to be told it was a new idea and people love the hype, also one of the many reasons why bitcoin is valuable is its limited supply so people thought that if the supply of a coin went down instead of up this will make it more valuable, but obviously they forgot that even if bitcoin had an unlimited supply it will still be valuable because of its use case, however the fact the supply is limited only makes it even more valuable and raises the demand even more, but in the case of those tokens since there is no demand then their supply is irrelevant to their value.

[Nasonn]

Tokens burn is a good strategy which reduces token circulation. This may or may not affect the price of the token in question. Projects should mint reasonable token supply not to burn some at some point.

[firmino10]

I think it is a really good way to increase the value of the project because when you burn the tokens you are reducing the token supply of the token. And when the demand is more than the supply then the price will automatically increase.

[flagpara]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token burning process is very good for legit project to push price up. All burning process has some system, isn't so easy to understand. I would suggest you to start from Ferrum network. They will burn their transaction cost token as running token price in the exchange. As history some projects reveal new supply without any reason.

[sahadat]

Token burning process has been tried in the market so far but no one has succeeded. Most of used token burning process only for useless project . It,s not just token price up the market that the tokens are burning . It just makes hype for newbies . If a project is useful for humans, then it does not require burning . The value of these projects is greatly increased for the needs of the people.

[Lexurdania]

Token burning process has been tried in the market so far but no one has succeeded. Most of used token burning process only for useless project . It,s not just token price up the market that the tokens are burning . It just makes hype for newbies . If a project is useful for humans, then it does not require burning . The value of these projects is greatly increased for the needs of the people.

Token burning was not successful because the project was not good. Some projects that do token burning can attract investors and influence the price movement. I think that any strategy taken by the developer team will have no effect unless the project can produce a good product

[rnsribeiro]

Token burning process has been tried in the market so far but no one has succeeded. Most of used token burning process only for useless project . It,s not just token price up the market that the tokens are burning . It just makes hype for newbies . If a project is useful for humans, then it does not require burning . The value of these projects is greatly increased for the needs of the people.

Token burning was not successful because the project was not good. Some projects that do token burning can attract investors and influence the price movement. I think that any strategy taken by the developer team will have no effect unless the project can produce a good product

Yeah, a good project is way more that just a good dev team.
You can tell just by looking at ethereum - damn they got the most devs than any crypto company out there, but eth is not top1.
I respect that its daily trading volume went really high lately, but its market cap is far away from btc.
And I think it is all about lack of good marketing.
bitcoin promotes itself since people doing memes, news and etc just to be involved in "crypto world"

[MUG1WARA]

all depends on demand in the market, if there is a lot of demand then the team burns the token then the price will increase but if on the contrary the token burn will only be crap

[quality.crypto]

Token burning process has been tried in the market so far but no one has succeeded. Most of used token burning process only for useless project . It,s not just token price up the market that the tokens are burning . It just makes hype for newbies . If a project is useful for humans, then it does not require burning . The value of these projects is greatly increased for the needs of the people.

Token burning was not successful because the project was not good. Some projects that do token burning can attract investors and influence the price movement. I think that any strategy taken by the developer team will have no effect unless the project can produce a good product

A company with strong platform should always build their project according to their roadmap and in this way, the burning model will help the project to increase the price. Without developing it is impossible for the coin to sustain in the market even though they are burning the coins.

[rdewilde]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

The idea of burning is to reduce the supply of the token which will then result in a more valuable token, that is increase in price, but even with this, if the team aren't up and doing towards making the platform valuable, then burning will not have any positive effect on the price. That is to say, the most important thing is the team working on their platform irrespective of the whether burning is done occasionally or when goods and services are being purchased with the platform's token, so that the idea behind the token burn will be achieved.

[shaheer001]

Token burning only works in those project which is already in a strong position like BNB, CRPT as when they burn some percentage of token that directly impact on the token price and price move up, But if a project is already dead then the token burning will never effect on its value or price.

[tvplus006]

Burning of tokens is one of the token mechanics that is used to ensure that there is a shortage of tokens in the ecosystem hence increasing demand for the little available. This goes a long way to increase the liquidity of the token hence giving long term holders profits.

I read such information that tokens are burned that are not implemented as a result of the ICO. This is really the right decision that reduces the number of coins issued. But when these coins are burned later, it does not increase their price. And this is surprising, because the burning process reduces the number of coins and this should affect the price change.

[Mianae]

Buying tokens because they're to be burnt down s not reflect on price. Token burns most time don't push price of tokens up, it's utility and hype that does this. If a token is not used for multiple purpose and don't also have community to pump the price up, token burn won't do anything different to the price.

[matchi2011]

Token burning only works in those project which is already in a strong position like BNB, CRPT as when they burn some percentage of token that directly impact on the token price and price move up, But if a project is already dead then the token burning will never effect on its value or price.

The after effects of any project that doing this kind of actions still depends with the developments of the coin, same with your perceptions those
coins that don't have any contributions and already classified as dead projects even they've tried to attract investors by burning portions of their
coin supplies investors are still at doubt that there's any impact that will take place, with a lots of competitions investors will always look for much
higher opportunities.

[Crypto_lion]

Yeah the sole purpose of token burning is to alter the price of the coin by suppressing the supply of the tokens in the market. It is kind of like an inorganic growth which adds nothing to the project /product that they are trying to develop. The only beneficiary are the token holders who bought it during the ico and lost their money.some respite for them.

[isaac_clarke22]

To your second to the last statement, you're practically pointing to how demand works and I think that token burning won't help that and it would just make it worse. If it still doesn't live to its own value, then I don't think that token burning is a way to pump the price (though I don't want to describe it as pump), because if it just ends up getting dumped in the end, then it's pointless.

[fortunecrypto]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

I doubt it will help if the project does not have support and the platform is useless, I have seen projects with huge supply and they are ok with it and I have seen projects that burns their tokens to minimize the supply but unfortunately because the platform is useless, it's not gaining support, what I'm saying is it's not the supply but the project itself.

[Crypto_Block_Chain]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.
It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

It is totally useless thing for a new token to do, since it kills the demand which is not high for new token.
However I find it quite useful for high demand coin/token since the supply will be lower than demand and the price will be straight higher

Usually, no new token does it.
You are right and it's not required for a new token to have a burning.

[WeedGoW]

Project with token burning is lacking foresight at the start and only doing burning to hope for an increased price. They are too greedy when first create the token, set the number of tokens too much. Just these points are  put people away with project that has token burning.

[Shallow]

People needs assurance that what they are buying will worth it and have value as time goes on, this is the most important and relevant thing in my own understanding. So not minding the burning of token or not, a project whose team is good and working hard as well will always reflect on the price of the token. What I think is, one shouldn't buy tokens because of token burning alone which is of course set by the team but instead one should buy based on what the token is all about and its potential value.

[Mealea]

Before now token burn is always effective but now it is nothing if i may say because it is not working again unlike before now. burning of token does not guarantee any increase in price because the only thing that can bring increase to price is increase in demand.

[FanEagle]

Burning tokens/coins for the reason of expecting the higher value for remaining circulating supply has been into crypto community's practice for years. By 2014/2015, I have seen people were sending their excess BTC to an addy which was known for not having any privatekey to handle the balances in it. It sounded like a foolish idea to me n those times itself.

But, recently I come across about a project like they initially air dropped huge amount of tokens and now burning some percentage from those air dropped tokens with some criteria. It sounds like good practice in my opinion.

[cryptonewbie]

A token burn is as useless as the p in psychology if no one wants the token. If there is no direct motive for burning tokens other than to shill a project then it won't make any difference to its tokenomics. Once a shit coin, always a shit coin kinda situation. One other thing I hate more than token burning is token swaps.

[nelson4lov]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Let's recap:

1. Token burn was an implementation by ICO projects in mid-2017. It was aimed at reducing supply and driving hype to the project.

2. It worked pretty much in 2017 as most projects followed suit and soon enough, we had tens if not hundreds of projects applying the same implementation.

3. It was not until the 2018 bear market that we learnt that token burning doesn't correlate with price increase. Only on  few occasions.

For the records, Binance, Pundi X and a host of crypto projects used token burn in their token economy. Binance does so with some of their profits – However, they're burning team tokens instead if I remember correctly.

As much as we want to believe that low supply = epic increase in prices, we shouldn't forget that the ultimate driver of price is the the actual demand for it.

[Yamifoud]

This is a common practice of ICO before but I'm not sure if these new projects did the same.

Well, burning tokens initiative is also having a price effect but it never feels especially if that certain project did nothing to contribute to the market. The price will remain at low even though they are cutting the total supply in order to uplift the price but it seems to be useless. In general, burning token means nothing if that project is just a dead one or scam.

[Ziskinberg]

in my understanding they are reducing their supply that is token burning, at the same time when a token or coin is being burn in some occasion the price go up, but this process is more effective during the 2017 season , during that time if a token gets burned the price will go up, unlike to day, 

If the project caught the eyes of the investors, then token burning would bring good result to the project, however, for shit projects who do token burning, it's useless as nobody is watching them, maybe those investors that will just regret later because they invested in a wrong project.

[HerbertMarcel]

Doing so means attracting the attention of the investor so that the scammers will be invisible in their dealings. So in such a process, the demand for coins is steadily increasing.

[heygeorge]

If a coin is listed with BTC pair and does Token Burning at the time of BTC halving. Would it have a double effect?

[Questat]

If a coin is listed with BTC pair and does Token Burning at the time of BTC halving. Would it have a double effect?

No, it depends on the project, if the project is not getting the attention of the investors, they will not get a positive effect for tha token burning.
Both are really separate, bitcoin would be successful but it will not happen to its trading pair.

[doctor877]

There is no point burning what is not widely used and what is the purpose of burning ? Is it to reduce supply or circulation? It still won't have any effect and not going to be necessary. You can burn your tokens as IEO/ICO leftover or at a specific time to reduce the supply. A burning model for transaction is dead at arrival especially for a struggling project. The idea is not enough to attract investors.

[kayvie]

There is no point burning what is not widely used and what is the purpose of burning ? Is it to reduce supply or circulation? It still won't have any effect and not going to be necessary. You can burn your tokens as IEO/ICO leftover or at a specific time to reduce the supply. A burning model for transaction is dead at arrival especially for a struggling project. The idea is not enough to attract investors.

It is true actually, but maybe they are using this process or the burning of token just to attract the attention of more investors. They may be thinking that if their circulating supply will be reduced, there is this possibility that investors will come thinking that the price of their product might increase after burning. But yes, we have seen a lot of projects doing this and it has no effect at all if the project is useless.

[JeotQ]

Token burn is not that important, project must be demanding in the first place and implementing burn in such project will help the price a lot more, burning tokens is not meant for all projects

[BlackFor3st]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Burning is a process or a tactics of other project owners in order to make sure that their tokes/coin price will grow. Once the supply will continue to decrease while the demand will continue to increase then it will trigger the increase of their currency prices.

That is why the other project owners are implementing a buy back option and burn process just to achieve their goal and to gather some investors also because investors will surely to gather if they can see a potential increase of their investment.

[FlagstaffRevel235]

Token burning is a process whereby the coins associated with the token are associated with the principle of value addition or price reduction. The process may increase the market activity of the coins exactly, but in the future it creates a non-profit situation in the market situation. Which is a threat.

[$anounimus$]

This is one of the strategies made to attract market demand, Sometimes this method is considered successful even if it is not permanent.

[heygeorge]

No, it depends on the project, if the project is not getting the attention of the investors, they will not get a positive effect for tha token burning.
Both are really separate, bitcoin would be successful but it will not happen to its trading pair.

Just for knowledge and the others who might not know just like myself, how can you explain about the similar graph of BTC and projects with its pair excluding any project related incidents talking only about having a BTC pair?

[gunungkembar]

There is no point burning what is not widely used and what is the purpose of burning ? Is it to reduce supply or circulation? It still won't have any effect and not going to be necessary. You can burn your tokens as IEO/ICO leftover or at a specific time to reduce the supply. A burning model for transaction is dead at arrival especially for a struggling project. The idea is not enough to attract investors.

but in my opinion with adnaya burn tokens can reduce the volume of the supply of tokens and can increase the price of tokens because it will be increasingly difficult to get tokens so that prices can go up, so burn tokens are a very smart choice to improve the price of tokens at the exchange place.

[InwardContour]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

In the past token burn was a catalyst for pump, with time that factor changed. Burn news wasn't really  moving the market for a while now, but recently, i was shocked that SOL burn news caused an immediate pump for the coin. I made 20% profit from SOL due to that FA. However, coins like BNB, KCS etc keep announcing quarterly burn and it now looks normal. Coin burn for me is ok, it reduces circulation, hence improves price.

[Ezravdb]

burning token steps is good enough to increase the price of token, The developers implemented the Token Burning Strategy to provide intensive for loyal investors. Well we see BNB where last week they burned nearly 3 million BNB, of course, a pretty good step for the future of BNB. The burning of token which is done every quarter will have a big impact to attract investors.

[forexandcryptoauditor]

Token burn concept shows that there is no demand. To increase the demand and lower the supply, project thinks that price will increase, which is not the real scenario. While creating tokenomics, we see huge millions or billions of coins/token supply. Do team think about future that there will not be demand if supply is so huge?
 This should be taken care by team and project advisors.

[AutomaticTrade254]

If the main purpose of this process is to increase the demand for coins then I would say that they must be linked to some scammers. Because when a coin or product is able to create a desire on the consumer's needs, it does not have to be solicited or pursued in a different way to create the demand. Thanks

[mdzahed134]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

Also demanded tokens burning in so many projects BNB as an example among of those. Sometimes it’s working i saw in few tokens. Definitely you can say at this times it’s way not working. But at this point absolutely correct, useless project never increase after burn. I noticed a project Azbit is a big proof, they burning weekly but no pump yet.                   

[ahmedtanjid]

Token value depends on supply and demand. If token have high demand then the price will increase indeed but if the token have less or no demand at all then so called burning won't do anything. I see a lot of projects create hype about this silly matter. They wanna catch investors eye by telling them  " this is a deflationary token, so when someone made a transaction it's total supply will reduce and therefore price will increase bla bla bla..." Actually this is a worthless feature in a token.

[OneLifeKiller070]

If any kind of logistical support is needed here, just as a burning company does not come forward, it will not be on the basis of demand or demand, even when you face a problem for some reason. So my advice would be to keep printing them.

[pixie85]

Many shitcoins try burns and swaps to decrease the number of coins in circulation.

A nice example of this is BTK (bitcoin turbo koin) which is a total shitcoin that did just that and still failed. After their swap the coins became worth more per coin but if you held and went through the swap you still lost and had coins worth less fiat money overall.

Increasing the value of each coin did not make people buy it. The majority kept dumping.

[7788bitcoin]

Many shitcoins try burns and swaps to decrease the number of coins in circulation.

A nice example of this is BTK (bitcoin turbo koin) which is a total shitcoin that did just that and still failed. After their swap the coins became worth more per coin but if you held and went through the swap you still lost and had coins worth less fiat money overall.

Increasing the value of each coin did not make people buy it. The majority kept dumping.

I think you lost money in it and so does majority who invested during the ICO boom, it was a trend for a period and thousands of coins and token projects are dead who had similar deflationary mechanism. People jump into these market to make a quick profit and investors who are going for the HODL in these tokens and projects will end up loosing their investment and become the bag holder.

[leatutz]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

I don't understand so much about burning token. How rest of the token use for distribution. Some legit projects has burning process which is good for investor and also for hunters. Still in new any projects, I'm ready to take any information of token burning process.

[Saichoukyushin]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token burn sometimes used to hype some projects because the circulating supply would be lessen but for me it was the demand of the project or the project itself if it was good project then the demand would be increased, but sometimes when the project has token burning then the price increased than expected.

[TimeTeller]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

Token burn sometimes used to hype some projects because the circulating supply would be lessen but for me it was the demand of the project or the project itself if it was good project then the demand would be increased, but sometimes when the project has token burning then the price increased than expected.

I agree with that, some projects only used it for marketing purposes.
If there's no actual usage for that particular coin or token, even if they burn all their tokens, there's no use of such action.
Burning will only be useful in aiming to elevate its price if there is actual application for that particular project.
And with the decreasing supply along with active application, it will drive its value upward.

[Silber]

It make a difference, if they have to buy the Coins to burn it or if they just burn the Coins, wiche they already have from the ICO/Pree-Mining-Coins.

The latter don`t have an effect on the price, because it doesn't`t increase the demand of the coin. But the first, If they have to buy the Coins to burn it, will push the price longterm.

[Teraboy]

This is one of the strategies made to attract market demand, Sometimes this method is considered successful even if it is not permanent.

If the burning token comes from the pre-mined coin and that will not give any impact to the price. I can teach you if there were so many projects that have already implmented this just like pundi have been getting a very difficult time because it has become useless token.
The token burning idea without come from the profit that already got by the company will be totally useless.

[havoc928]

This is one of the strategies made to attract market demand, Sometimes this method is considered successful even if it is not permanent.

If the burning token comes from the pre-mined coin and that will not give any impact to the price. I can teach you if there were so many projects that have already implmented this just like pundi have been getting a very difficult time because it has become useless token.
The token burning idea without come from the profit that already got by the company will be totally useless.

You said incorrectly, Pundi X has really had success in burning tokens and at that time its price increased sharply. but only now when people found out that the business was not performing as planned so investors got out early. Therefore, in this case, Burning token is still one of the great things to help the price increase in the short term. but in the long term, we must consider the success of the project plan.

[OrangeII]

in general, reducing the supply of tokens by burning them can increase the price of the token in question. it's just that, it will function when the burned token has a great need for its users. however, some token burning sometimes becomes useless, because basically there are not so many users of the token.  that's what I think about this

[Bananington]

in general, reducing the supply of tokens by burning them can increase the price of the token in question. it's just that, it will function when the burned token has a great need for its users. however, some token burning sometimes becomes useless, because basically there are not so many users of the token.  that's what I think about this

Yes in the real sense token burn should increase price due to less circulating supply. However, this burn function has been used over time to pump the price of coins, until it no longer moves the market. Coins like BNB and KCS do quarterly burn, now it looks normal and doesn't create FOMO as before.

[Adya]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

ot is not nessessary that price will grow. maybe little pump after news about burning. but often price fall back when people understood that situation was not changed. because circulating supply was not changed because burned pool was from locked tokens which was allocated for "to support the project". i thibk this kind of burning is fake.

[Btc_1856]

in general, reducing the supply of tokens by burning them can increase the price of the token in question. it's just that, it will function when the burned token has a great need for its users. however, some token burning sometimes becomes useless, because basically there are not so many users of the token.  that's what I think about this

Yes in the real sense token burn should increase price due to less circulating supply. However, this burn function has been used over time to pump the price of coins, until it no longer moves the market. Coins like BNB and KCS do quarterly burn, now it looks normal and doesn't create FOMO as before.

Agree, in the short term, we won't see much benefit from the coins like BNB and KCS, but if you compare with the ICO price already the coin prices have increased a lot, a company is following their roadmap procedure in order to increase the coin value. The market should also support because when we see uptrend then the coin price will surely increase.

[Google+]

in general, reducing the supply of tokens by burning them can increase the price of the token in question. it's just that, it will function when the burned token has a great need for its users. however, some token burning sometimes becomes useless, because basically there are not so many users of the token.  that's what I think about this

Yes in the real sense token burn should increase price due to less circulating supply. However, this burn function has been used over time to pump the price of coins, until it no longer moves the market. Coins like BNB and KCS do quarterly burn, now it looks normal and doesn't create FOMO as before.

Agree, in the short term, we won't see much benefit from the coins like BNB and KCS, but if you compare with the ICO price already the coin prices have increased a lot, a company is following their roadmap procedure in order to increase the coin value. The market should also support because when we see uptrend then the coin price will surely increase.

if you see a Binance Coin then the price movement is very good and has risen to be very expensive but you should know that the binance exchange place will always evolve and certainly will use a variety of ways to make BNB prices expensive and can be useful for many traders who will trade at the binance exchange place.

[Ken_terrance]

Do not let 'token burn' be your priority when investing in crypto coins, most times tokens or coins with this burn feature are useless, in the end you will still end up with a useless coin or token, the answer is usecase, good use case with burn feature will do so much good than a coin with no usefulness but burn feature only

[hiburak]

Token burn doesn't impact the price on the short term, but if some projects keep burning tokens consistently they will reduce the supply and bring price appreciation for long term investors who can hold for several years.

On the other hand, token burn gives some idea to the investors about the valuation of the token. Institutional investors may be doing token valuations by looking into burn metrics. 

[MikeyVeez]

Burning token is an effective method how to encourage the growth of price. Because you reduce the number of circulating tokens, so token become more rare and this is associated with its higher price. Why diamond is expensive? Because it is a rare thing. 

[Baimovic]

Token burning is often done by some project developers and aims to improve the quality of the price of the token so that it has a high sale value, but sometimes it does not correspond to reality. and of course the success of the token burning also depends on market demand.

[SistaFista]

Do not let 'token burn' be your priority when investing in crypto coins, most times tokens or coins with this burn feature are useless, in the end you will still end up with a useless coin or token, the answer is usecase, good use case with burn feature will do so much good than a coin with no usefulness but burn feature only

At least token burn can make the coin value more higher in the future.
If the token demand going high, the price of the coin will rising and the token burn will make the price rising more.
The token burning proves the team is serious to support their project by buybacking it.

[zuziekatee]

Token burn dosent mean much , sometimes it might be lack of good plan . Most times it might be just to show transparency or to discard excess tokens. But the demand for the coins is the mist important

[Zeke_23]

Token burn dosent mean much , sometimes it might be lack of good plan . Most times it might be just to show transparency or to discard excess tokens. But the demand for the coins is the mist important

It means a lot before, but since token burning was often used by most projects, it loses its real purpose.
Project developers also weren't able to apply this in the right way, because even without the demand or investors they still do it just to get enough investors, however, investors already know this kind of trick and they already know that this is ineffective nowadays.

[ReliabilityAlert222]

I'm not interested in saying too much. Because if the investor is motivated or encouraged by this then I don't see any loss. It's always depends on concept and purpose of the project which real in life . Burning is just additional kickoff for them to give value to the price which absolutely useless attempt. My opinion .

[fosco333]

Yes, token burning is a method that can prevent token inflation by limiting the supply.
We know that the more token supply the less the price because the availability of the token is still big.
But if the token supply is low, then the price will rising due the demand higher than the supply.

[DabsPoorVersion]

Yes, token burning is a method that can prevent token inflation by limiting the supply.
We know that the more token supply the less the price because the availability of the token is still big.
But if the token supply is low, then the price will rising due the demand higher than the supply.

No, token burning is not a method of limiting the supply. Token burning is a process where they permanently remove the existing/circulating supply of a certain coin.

But it is true that they undergo this process to lessen the supply and increase the price, however, this is not a successive method nowadays because even if they decrease the supply, they are having a problem of increasing their demand.

[Ziskinberg]

Yes, token burning is a method that can prevent token inflation by limiting the supply.
We know that the more token supply the less the price because the availability of the token is still big.
But if the token supply is low, then the price will rising due the demand higher than the supply.

No, token burning is not a method of limiting the supply. Token burning is a process where they permanently remove the existing/circulating supply of a certain coin.

But it will not remove all the supply, just a certain number or percent of supply only and that's the reason why we can expect that the value will rise as the project is improving, its supply is decreasing, some sort of supply and demand game, when there is more demand and we have few supply, it will result to an increase of the price, but still it depends on how the project will perform in the long run.

But it is true that they undergo this process to lessen the supply and increase the price, however, this is not a successive method nowadays because even if they decrease the supply, they are having a problem of increasing their demand.

That's what the team has to work out, they need to improve and develop the project so the demand will increase and of course the value will rise.

[cahbagus555]

Yes, token burning is a method that can prevent token inflation by limiting the supply.
We know that the more token supply the less the price because the availability of the token is still big.
But if the token supply is low, then the price will rising due the demand higher than the supply.

If the token has a large transaction volume and a large marketcap value, the burn token will affect prices positively because the supply will decrease drastically while demand remains constant or may even increase

[Mighty_crypt]

Burning tokens is like a gateway to shrink max supply for better value but it's not that necessary, look at ripple with billion max supply and trading at 0.2$ per token, if burn happened the value will increase but not necessary, burning is a project team call not investors, and every investors shouldn't invest in a project because they have burn feature

[Kvalentine]

If the token or coin has bad demand in the market the burning features won't affect the price because no good demand for the coin, token burning feature is only very good for popular coins with good volumes on exchanges

[passwordnow]

Token burning is often done by some project developers and aims to improve the quality of the price of the token so that it has a high sale value, but sometimes it does not correspond to reality. and of course the success of the token burning also depends on market demand.

How many of those projects that reached their goals when they have done token burning? This is done lately just to hype a project to gather the attention of investors. Many didn't actually met their goal of pumping the price of their token because investors are wiser.
It doesn't mean that they will burn the token supply, there's a sure money that investors will take. This is like the marketing stunt and hyping of a token if they are not noticed.

[Iyeman]

Token burn dosent mean much , sometimes it might be lack of good plan . Most times it might be just to show transparency or to discard excess tokens. But the demand for the coins is the mist important

I will take binance token burn as the best example how this idea will not give a lot of impact to the price of token. Basically, when it comes from the profit that has already gotten by the company and use it to buy back the token it will give positive impact to the price but this will not always work perfectly. Like you said that it doesn't matter a lot to determine the price of token.

[pixie85]

Many shitcoins try burns and swaps to decrease the number of coins in circulation.

A nice example of this is BTK (bitcoin turbo koin) which is a total shitcoin that did just that and still failed. After their swap the coins became worth more per coin but if you held and went through the swap you still lost and had coins worth less fiat money overall.

Increasing the value of each coin did not make people buy it. The majority kept dumping.

I think you lost money in it and so does majority who invested during the ICO boom, it was a trend for a period and thousands of coins and token projects are dead who had similar deflationary mechanism. People jump into these market to make a quick profit and investors who are going for the HODL in these tokens and projects will end up loosing their investment and become the bag holder.

I've never owned BTK, but I know how it was doing, just like I know a lot about some other POS coins like Bitcoin one.
 
I did some research into them but after all they've proven not to be worth the money.

Really, you don't have to be a bagholder to have some negative things to say about some of those shitcoins.

[Iyanu14]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

I stand to be corrected, I have not seen any deflationary token that is still successful till date.  The advent of deflationary tokens brought a new spirit into Cryptos industry and many of us thought it's going to be a good idea because it will create a kind of scarcity and thereby increase the price when the demand is high.  Unfortunately, this didn't work out as demand for deflationary tokens was nothing to write home about.  I still have some in my wallet now that is not making sense at all.

[durilup]

“Burning tokens” actually is a old method for making that token or that coin rare . It is cool method knowing the fact if the offer is bigger than the demand we know there will be a pump

[Marble777]

I don't think burning tokens really affects the price of tokens to be high. projects usually aim to burn their tokens to attract investors or reduce the amount of the supply of tokens also does not always make prices high. all this depends on the marketing of the project team and the demand and supply in the market.

[Smitty Werben Man Jensen]

“Burning tokens” actually is a old method for making that token or that coin rare . It is cool method knowing the fact if the offer is bigger than the demand we know there will be a pump

of course the method is very cool, but only for coins or tokens that have a lot of total supply, and that is very popular with new projects, and for large projects I don't think Burn Tokens are a priority, look at Ethereum or Ripple, they don't use this method

[slaman29]

“Burning tokens” actually is a old method for making that token or that coin rare . It is cool method knowing the fact if the offer is bigger than the demand we know there will be a pump

Old method that never really worked if you ask me. I mean, the economics is sound but when tokens that are shitty in value are halved by burning 50% of supply, as I've even seen in the past, the price never doubled, maybe temporarily but I keep seeing token burns result in even lower prices. People who think BTC price will x2 after halving should also see this lesson.

[thisnewcoin]

“Burning tokens” actually is a old method for making that token or that coin rare . It is cool method knowing the fact if the offer is bigger than the demand we know there will be a pump

of course the method is very cool, but only for coins or tokens that have a lot of total supply, and that is very popular with new projects, and for large projects I don't think Burn Tokens are a priority, look at Ethereum or Ripple, they don't use this method

Absolutely! A normal project's price Won't be pumped even after burning huge amounts of tokens, but if a better project does that then there will create a hype! Like Stellar burned a large numbers of coins and price grew well and there was hype too! Burning tokens from the supply is not a new trick but it is a very cool idea, I haven’t seen any better method to replace it!   

[zaim7413]

“Burning tokens” actually is a old method for making that token or that coin rare . It is cool method knowing the fact if the offer is bigger than the demand we know there will be a pump

Yes, and this old method is still used by some token developers at this time, because it still looks very effective in making pumps for a token in the crypto market, so even though it is an old method, it is still very feasible to use.

[TheICE007]

Token burning to me is a good innovation, when used at the right time, gone are the days when people rush to buy a token because of token burn, now the token should have a good working product,then if there is news surrounding the project with the token burn news then it's going to  help the price alot.

[r32godzilla]

I rather see buyback programs done by the core team because they have to spend money for buying tokens from the users. So this can bring price up, but burning token from the team reserve doesn´t ensure price pump. 

[timmmers]

Token burning, buybacks, staking, everything artificially pushing the price up. Look how many coins we have and how many are really used for everyday life? They try to attract investors only on these buzzwords, but there is no value in the background.

[H1N1]

Some project have token burning schedule to increasing their token price.
But this is of course not free, the team will need to cost some money to buy so they can burn it.
And i think it is a good sign of project, because the team is in fact, care about the value of their token.

[Odebowa]

Token burning refers to the permanent removal of existing cryptocurrency coins from circulation. The practice of burning is common in the industry and is quite straightforward. ... Token burning is similar to the notion of share buybacks by publicly owned corporations, which reduce the amount of stock available.
in Most cases token burning is good for fast rising project and not project that its hardly seeing demand, if care is not taken it will be useless

[angrybirdy]

Some project have token burning schedule to increasing their token price.
But this is of course not free, the team will need to cost some money to buy so they can burn it.
And i think it is a good sign of project, because the team is in fact, care about the value of their token.

It's true but this is not a good process anymore. Token burning had been a process even before, it is used to decrease the supply and increase the price for their holders. But this is becoming useless because project developers are not applying it in the correct way. They most likely do this process even without the demand. So, basically they are just applying it to try and have the possibility of having more investors which won't happen because this can't attract new investors anymore.

[@baoli]

If a coin don't not have good liquidity in the market the price will still go down . usability is most Paramount in any project. Burning token can't push price up if the token is not useful.

[mdzahed134]

This is one of the strategies made to attract market demand, Sometimes this method is considered successful even if it is not permanent.

If the burning token comes from the pre-mined coin and that will not give any impact to the price. I can teach you if there were so many projects that have already implmented this just like pundi have been getting a very difficult time because it has become useless token.
The token burning idea without come from the profit that already got by the company will be totally useless.

You said incorrectly, Pundi X has really had success in burning tokens and at that time its price increased sharply. but only now when people found out that the business was not performing as planned so investors got out early. Therefore, in this case, Burning token is still one of the great things to help the price increase in the short term. but in the long term, we must consider the success of the project plan.

I think NPXS didn’t burned tokens when it was needed. When investors were disappointed for hold this coin, team's made a plan likes trying to increase price firstly did burned tokens than isn’t worked after a several times burned, delisted a few trading pairs on binance exchange. Pundi X not impacted through of burning tokens, they failed in the plan.               

[pixie85]

“Burning tokens” actually is a old method for making that token or that coin rare . It is cool method knowing the fact if the offer is bigger than the demand we know there will be a pump

It's a pointless act if you ask me. It doesn't matter if something is rare because rarity doen't equal value! Rarity can boost value if there's some utility or beauty somewhere in there but rarity alone will not achieve anything.

Excrements of white tigers are very rare but are they valuable? You can't make a gold ring out of shit just like you can't turn a worthless token into a valuable one by cutting its suppply in half.

[tycsols]

I support burning and buy backs but i think they effect will come when the market will be bullish also remember that there are many other factors also involved in pricing and value of a token other than burning so when most of these factors become positive only then we see increase in demand and value.

[suvo05]

It totally depends on the project. There are lots of scam projects which promise to token burning. They usually use the idea to attract people. But that does not mean that all of such kind projects are garbage. For example, the project Aave, which is a lending platform seems to be doing a good job for the last few months. On the other hand Covex-trading platform which also promises token burning yet to list their coin on their own exchange.

[kingzpro]

Yes, in the end what matters the most is the product itself so if the product has good use cases and demand in the market then the value of project is bound to increase overtime but i would say that burning of tokens is a positive step by the project team especially if they are transparent, they definitely help in boosting the value.

[shollyen]

Some projects already promised coin burn, they have done that and yet =, there is no significant increase in price. Binance did that recently and the impact was not feasible. if it were to be in those days, there would have been a lot of Hype. I am not saying that BNB is not a good token and in fact, it is growing, but for the fact that another number of tokens were burnt, never impacted the price of BNB, but it was good they fulfilled their promise.
Since most projects already know that it does not really work, they do not include it again in their roadmap or tokenomics. Rather, they reserve excess tokens for future development and sometimes engage in locking.

[landoffaucets]

I don´think that it really works, still many tokens and coins have big inflation rate, so the tokens that will be issued to the network is much higher than current circulating supply and this is the reson why price of many altcoins falling down.

[Rubick99]

About 2-3 years ago many ICO project that using this event to decrease their token supply and hopefully that token will be expensive as a supply and demand law. But in fact, they just have less demand and then this project ignored. Don't trust this marketinf strategy anymore. Event big coin not using this.

[andycarrol]

About 2-3 years ago many ICO project that using this event to decrease their token supply and hopefully that token will be expensive as a supply and demand law. But in fact, they just have less demand and then this project ignored. Don't trust this marketinf strategy anymore. Event big coin not using this.

indeed by burning some supplies can make coins that are obtained or coins that are circulating difficult to obtain but those who are developing must know that not only can that increase the price at the exchange place, there must be good news that can trigger investors to enter in supporting the coin which was developed so that with a combination of these two methods I guarantee can provide price increases.

[sandra_x]

Token burn mechanism is effective mostly in the short term for most projects, the more important factor for the success of a project long term has to be real value proposition by the project and community support. Many of the token burn platforms are not doing so well at the moment. Many are just like ponzi schemes

[SMF17DSN]

There is some new dev. project who want to burn their token to make some noise but other new project are just fake and make some profit. idk if there would be some decent new dev. project nowadays....

[Doranile432]

I will like to make example out of few popular projects in crypto space today that have this burning feature

1. Binance exchange did burn off some of their tokens to reduce it's max supply and increase it's value, it did end up working because BNB token already have its own use case, it's a very demanding coin from scratch

2. OKEX exchange token (OKB) is another good example too, they burn tokens to reduce supply this making the coin to grow higher in value, low supply equals to high demand but only for use cases that works

Burning feature only makes sense if the token already has a very good use case

[carlisle1]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

yeah and in 2018-2019 this burning becomes popular as many companies are doing the same but still nothing comes good to their tokens price because some are useless generic and others are too much volume that the burning seems to no effect at all.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

I think this is useful to those who  has Big volume but also has a good performance,this enhanced their capacity in distribution and also in the eyes of investors so meaning it depend on the status and future plans of each project.

[Farma]

Token burn mechanism is effective mostly in the short term for most projects, the more important factor for the success of a project long term has to be real value proposition by the project and community support. Many of the token burn platforms are not doing so well at the moment. Many are just like ponzi schemes

it is effective if the coins used are popular coins. this is like burning a popular item with the aim of making the item have limited stock. if the item has a limited stock, it can have a good effect on price. however, some projects that do this, sometimes do not have any effect. I can only conclude that they took the wrong strategy.

[LbtalkL]

Technically the result of a token burn is a price hike. You can compare it to your local store like for an instance there is a limited supply of chicken meat, obviously, the sellers will sell it at a high price that is what happens when you decrease the supply of a certain product or asset. That is what some projects are doing some do it as an event or occasion yearly, every 3 months like Binance. I heard some altcoin before has a different method of burning they burn their token supply when you send any amount of their token or made any transaction but  I don't know if they are still running it.

[tvplus006]

...Binance exchange did burn off some of their tokens to reduce it's max supply and increase it's value, it did end up working because BNB token already have its own use case, it's a very demanding coin from scratch...

This is the most successful example of how burning a coin increases its value. But in addition to the burning itself, the value of the BNB coin increases because of its value to exchange participants. In addition to reducing the Commission, BNB holders have the right to participate in IEO held by Binance.

[mr.robot8]

many of the ico, of the new projects after their end plan the burning of their tokens at certain intervals of time with the sole aim of keeping the price high on the market,thus making it circulate less

[mdzahed134]

I will like to make example out of few popular projects in crypto space today that have this burning feature

1. Binance exchange did burn off some of their tokens to reduce it's max supply and increase it's value, it did end up working because BNB token already have its own use case, it's a very demanding coin from scratch

2. OKEX exchange token (OKB) is another good example too, they burn tokens to reduce supply this making the coin to grow higher in value, low supply equals to high demand but only for use cases that works

These coins are from two biggest exchanges token, they have huge demand in crypto space, so you can't give too such examples. Specifically OKB is big increased, almost burned 65% tokens from total supply. I don’t think it’s significant changes will not happen if after only a several million tokens burn. Even not impacted price in many real uses projects like Pundi X.             

[danielchris]

Although there is fluctuating of price in the market grow up & slow down. But there is wording of  any coin is not justified. I think  it's cheap language for  them.it is human being nature, not anyone wants to be face loss.but market is running base of  fluctuating. I think so.

[key4co.in]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

In the first place, they should not or stopped creating a huge supply of their token, no investors will be attracted to projects that have a huge supply while they have a useless platform, it's not about supply anymore it's more on the platform and if the platform has a good usage to the community.

This is good reasoning 👍, if the total supply for the coin/token is not so large, what's the need for burning huge amount. However, even some coins with fair total supply like BNB still burn quarterly, just to reduce circulating supply hence increase value. Also, some projects deliberately issue a very large total supply, then burn to create FOMO.

[103deltafox]

Token burn is actually good, it will help reduce the total supply and the circulating supply, with this, supply would tend to be low and as such demand will increase,making the price of the token to be high, but then the project should have a use case something people can always look at and demand for it,because only token burn might just be useless without a working product.

[Diamond_Darrell]

Token burn is actually good, it will help reduce the total supply and the circulating supply, with this, supply would tend to be low and as such demand will increase,making the price of the token to be high, but then the project should have a use case something people can always look at and demand for it,because only token burn might just be useless without a working product.

You're absolutely right. Burning tokens is a good informational reason to raise the price up and sell tokens to greedy hamsters at a high price) This is how it works. People get crypto-phantics that will burn in the future, and developers receive highly liquid assets, money and other goodies in return

[BitTraderCute]

Token burn is actually good, it will help reduce the total supply and the circulating supply, with this, supply would tend to be low and as such demand will increase,making the price of the token to be high, but then the project should have a use case something people can always look at and demand for it,because only token burn might just be useless without a working product.

sometimes its not effective while dev team have no another milestone. they decrease supply alot but if no important MPV that could not attract investors it will not run well. token burning not only the key to make price growth, there are another thing that maybe more important than it.

[coinswebid]

Hey


I have noticed a few projects that developed a deflation system for their coins/tokens called burning.

They burn their tokens on a special occasion or simply when someone pays their product with the native token. They burn few percent of the price.

What do you think about this? Imo, if people actually buy the produc then it can really reflect the price of a coin?

Let me know what you think.

i think tokens or coins burning is one from many way from the dev team to increase the value from their project
because this actions will reduce the supply, and less supply will bring more demands, and more demands will push the price up, sometimes in slow movemnts, sometimes in fast mode buddy

[WannaCry]

token burning is no use if the project is not performing properly.. may believe that when a project burn a portion of their coin the price will go up because it will limit the supply, its wrong!!

[mksundip]

A token burn is still useless if there is no demand for the token. Most projects do a token burn hoping that the price will rise due to less token circulation but this doesn't work if there is no demand.

It's the most useless process i have ever seen around in economical aspects.

yes right, there is no effect whatsoever from the token burning. because so far there have been many wrong perceptions. I think they are burning tokens by publishing it to the public and hope that the price can be pumped. but in reality that is not the goal, actually the pump price if the traffic movement on the exchange is large and also the purchase demand is high. that's the main goal. so burn tokens like a futile act

[restuibu]

it all depends on the usability and demand in the market, many projects are trying to reduce the total supply by burning tokens but all in vain, they are not aware that their project is not in demand. such a project even if it will burn all existing tokens it will still be useless, burning tokens only creates hype

[denasha92]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

[marcous]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

I think it's useless if a project burns its tokens, it will only increase the price for an instant. a project must continue to develop the project and always update it.

[khiholangkang]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

It depends on the project, token burning will be effective if the token has market demand, and burning will make it easier to increase the price. However if a token has no demand, burning will have no effect.

[Pamadar]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

It depends on the project, token burning will be effective if the token has market demand, and burning will make it easier to increase the price. However if a token has no demand, burning will have no effect.

The after effect will be seen by investors if the team really working hard to offer more updates coming from the projects, if there are demands this action will bring the value of the coin in a much higher price.
It's very important for the team to continue providing useful information and  better marketing strategy to bring investors inside.

[X-ray]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

Burning the token will not bring the token into the positive trend until the token itself will have offered a good features to the holders. I should remind you that if the usability of token means a lot and in this case the token burning means nothing  against it. People very know about this and they avoid to invest in the burning token without real product.

[qiwoman2]

I work in a project that burns from business profits regularly and now they have issues a quarterly burn. Eureka Network has burned so far over 40 million coins and yesterday they did another buy back in order to burn coins. I think at this rate the supply will decrease nicely and there will be more and more value added to it intrinsically because of all the partnerships and utility they are adding every month in different ways. They earn both from offline activities and online ones which is bringing the coin to increase gradually in value over time through adding REAL VALUE and a deflationary supply.

[Aaroenz0r]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

Burning the token will not bring the token into the positive trend until the token itself will have offered a good features to the holders. I should remind you that if the usability of token means a lot and in this case the token burning means nothing  against it. People very know about this and they avoid to invest in the burning token without real product.

I agree! Although some how burning tokens can reduce the total supply, hence, increases the value of the token. However, it's not likely to happen when the project doesn't develop. The project needs to have some real developments or applications that can benefit investors. In this case, they will decide to invest more and more that increase the value of the coin. Otherwise, burning tokens doesn't bring any positive result!

[erikoy]

Burning of tokens will help somehow if the project is working and has demand for it from the users. The supply of the said tokens will reduced to which its coin market price will also affected and probably get an increase depending on the total percentage of tokens being burned.

However, i agree that token burning useless if project has no demand. It will just be labeled and categorize as shit coins in the market. There are many of these now that people are not interested in investing anymore but creating projects to scam other people. Sad but this is the reality in most of the project.

[Free1bitco.in]

As far as I know, burning unsold tokens has the aim of keeping the circulating price of tokens that have been sold stable. Well, it was an attempt to stabilize the price or get higher. therefore, tokens that are not sold are burned, so that there is no circulation cycle for unsold tokens. if not burned, the token has many resources so that it becomes worthless. if not burned, it can dump the sold token price.

[ice18]

About 2-3 years ago many ICO project that using this event to decrease their token supply and hopefully that token will be expensive as a supply and demand law. But in fact, they just have less demand and then this project ignored. Don't trust this marketinf strategy anymore. Event big coin not using this.

This are the deflationary shitcoin projects with no usecase they are created just for price speculations or pump and dump scheme only developers can profit in this kind of project but there are also very legit new projects this days with deflationary feature and real developers and they are mostly defi sector like myx, lid,trustswap. 

[Francis Freeman]

Personally I am not a fan of token burns scheduled to reduce the supply of the coins. Burning unsold tokens during ico is fine but future burns aren't necessarily a good thing.

[leea-1334]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

I think it's useless if a project burns its tokens, it will only increase the price for an instant. a project must continue to develop the project and always update it.

I said it before. Tokens are like supermarket points. You know the ones you get when you shop. Buy $100 worth and get extra 50 points, and you trade them in for prizes or discounts.

Token burning is like saying the supermarket will invalidate the points,,, what is the value of something created from nothing and based only on what the issuer says it is? Nothing.

[Pecunia non olet]

It is a strategy on how to make more valuable 1 token by reducing the supply. It is based on mathematical model. Price is affected by current supply and market capitalization. If you reduce supply, the price of one token should grow naturally.

[hrunya102]

There are different burning procedures, but often this does not significantly affect the price, although it may have a positive effect in the long term.

[Smitty Werben Man Jensen]

It is a strategy on how to make more valuable 1 token by reducing the supply. It is based on mathematical model. Price is affected by current supply and market capitalization. If you reduce supply, the price of one token should grow naturally.

yes right, one of the investors' favorites is token burning, just imagine if the supply of coins is getting less, and there is a lot of demand,
the price will also increase, of course this makes the future even brighter

[Pasutinmeur]

i've seen some projects that burned their tokens. they said they will recover the price in the market. some projects burned their token when the price is dumped. but in the end, it doesn't affect anything with their price. i think token burning worthless to do.

I think it's useless if a project burns its tokens, it will only increase the price for an instant. a project must continue to develop the project and always update it.

It will not increase the price again right now and so many things have already changed and the traders and pumpers were seeing the project based on the product. So many coins that were doing regular burning token process have already dumped to the bottom again.