Token burning

[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.