Why is burning coins good

[Hazank]

Recently, many projects have announced the burning of coins, but not everyone understands what this means.

This is a process by which cryptocurrency miners or developers get rid of a certain amount of tokens by sending them to addresses that are not accessible to anyone. The burning of coins is being implemented not because of the low viability of the project, but rather because of the desire of the creators of cryptocurrencies for great prospects.

Thus, the developers are trying to reduce the total number of available coins, while the created shortage affects the growth of their value.

The burning of coins can talk about the upcoming expansion of the project and a possible increase in its value. For example, after the recent announcement of a collaboration between Polygon and Newscrypto, the latter announced that they decided to burn $ 10M worth of NWC tokens this year. Consequently, in the near future, we can see a significant growth of NWC price on this news. What do you think about burning coins? Does this really affect the market value of the coins?

[1715068676]

1715068676

[1715068676]

1715068676

[1715068676]

1715068676

[1715068676]

1715068676

[el kaka22]

The sad part about this is that, "burning" became such a hyped buzzword that I see new projects starting with 1 trillion tokens and then burning 500 billion of them. Even if the coin worths literally 1 satoshi each, or even lower, that looks like they just burned millions or thousands of dollars at least. Which creates this amazing "marketing" for people who do not realize that starting with 1 trillion and burning 500 billion tokens is EXACTLY same as starting with 500 billion tokens, there is no difference.

All in all burning needs to stop being a buzzword and start being something great again. BNB is the most famous one, very very recently the other day Binance burned literally millions of dollars in a single day, that is the proof that burning could be good, they are actually making it very scarce with this method and the value goes up thanks to it, that is how burning should be done.

[devil2man]

originally this practice was used to decrease the quantity of existing altcoins and therefore maintain or raise its price, value but currently i do not know how useful this method is given the continuous unpredictable fluctuations of all markets

[dothebeats]

I don't understand why projects refer to these methods in order to achieve stability or increase the value of their tokens/coins. In the first place, if the project is viable, the coin/token will not suffer any potential loss of value due to its supply. Hence the need for burning would not be there since the coin is doing well for itself. This method is so overused in the current altcoin market that people think that by purposely removing coins in circulation, the coin's value should rise. On paper and in theory, that should happen, but what if the coin doesn't really offer something new on the table?

[ene1980]

Recently, many projects have announced the burning of coins, but not everyone understands what this means.

This is a process by which cryptocurrency miners or developers get rid of a certain amount of tokens by sending them to addresses that are not accessible to anyone. The burning of coins is being implemented not because of the low viability of the project, but rather because of the desire of the creators of cryptocurrencies for great prospects.

This is just a marketing strategy by the project developers, they create a hell lot of tokens and if they are successful with the advertisement and the launch then they will advertise about the burning of coins, to make the investors happy because whenever there is a certain amount of coins that disappears from the circulation, the valuation increases if you are able to attract huge investors and i always view them as a marketing strategy to make things interesting.

[livingfree]

It is actually a good thing to burn tokens.

But a lot of projects have found it as a marketing ploy just to hype their projects. Unlike those projects that have burning part of their road map, they don't have to play it as a marketing.

Since it's part of their road map, people have been aware that there's always a schedule for such projects to burn tokens as part of their token economy.

[crzy]

This is a market strategy for a tokens/coins to further attract more investors since the lesser the supply, the higher the chance to increase its value especially if we are talking about good projects here, for example with Binance they keep on burning and look its value now, its getting more expensive so for me this is a good strategy.

[wxa7115]

The sad part about this is that, "burning" became such a hyped buzzword that I see new projects starting with 1 trillion tokens and then burning 500 billion of them. Even if the coin worths literally 1 satoshi each, or even lower, that looks like they just burned millions or thousands of dollars at least. Which creates this amazing "marketing" for people who do not realize that starting with 1 trillion and burning 500 billion tokens is EXACTLY same as starting with 500 billion tokens, there is no difference.

All in all burning needs to stop being a buzzword and start being something great again. BNB is the most famous one, very very recently the other day Binance burned literally millions of dollars in a single day, that is the proof that burning could be good, they are actually making it very scarce with this method and the value goes up thanks to it, that is how burning should be done.

Agreed, this is a marketing scheme and nothing more, there are many coins that are doing what you are describing and people fall for this as if it was any better than starting the project with that number of coins to begin with.

Besides while this could create some increase in the price of the coin if at the end the demand remains the same the price will remain flat, they are trying to control the supply of a coin to artificially make the price of their coin to go up, so this is clear manipulation done by the developers and I do not like this at all as it shows they have nothing else up their sleeve.

[letyouearn]

The paradoxical effect of coins burning is - getting more money than you spend
The team of such a project destroys some of their money and should affect the market in such way so that the coin price growth followed by this action overcomes this loss.

[Jaered]

The effect of coin or token burning is not far-fetched. It reduces the total and circulating supply of the crypto. Now according to the laws of economics, when supply is low, demand is high, and if the demand is high, then it follows that price of the goods or services is pumped. This is how it should be, though it doesn't always work like this

[DarkDays]

It is actually a good thing to burn tokens.

But a lot of projects have found it as a marketing ploy just to hype their projects. Unlike those projects that have burning part of their road map, they don't have to play it as a marketing.

Yh, it is a system that I think now many projects implement because it 'sounds cool' and its real value thus is starting to get lost.

Though for serious projects like ETH or BNB token burning still means something and can lead to token value inflation as the number of tokens in circulation are reduced.

I suppose it depends on the projects you look at and whether their idea of a token burn has been on their roadmap since inception - obviously this doesn't apply much to new projects but it is a metric nonetheless.

[Yogee]

The sad part about this is that, "burning" became such a hyped buzzword that I see new projects starting with 1 trillion tokens and then burning 500 billion of them. Even if the coin worths literally 1 satoshi each, or even lower, that looks like they just burned millions or thousands of dollars at least. Which creates this amazing "marketing" for people who do not realize that starting with 1 trillion and burning 500 billion tokens is EXACTLY same as starting with 500 billion tokens, there is no difference.

I couldn't have said it any better. It's like ypu stole the words I'm about to say hehe.

...Thus, the developers are trying to reduce the total number of available coins, while the created shortage affects the growth of their value.

They saw the success of the coin burning pioneering projects and they wany to follow their footsteps.Most developers today have abused this unfortunately. They intentionally inflated the initial supply so they could create a fake "shortage" later on as el kaka22 explained very well.

Don't easily fall into this marketing trap.

[Hypnosis00]

Burning coins has been a practice for many developers...what it makes good is they are decreasing the number of their coins, which helps to increase the market value. This strategy was something it gets the attention of the community since many projects had come to that point of burning their coins. Might this will be the last option to reach their target price. Never have seen any benefits but just the price increase, and indeed, actually, it is very effective.

[Fatunad]

Burning coins is just really good if the supply is unlimited and the minting of new coins is continous or simply having that infinite supply or shall we say that
coins does have billions of total supply then it is just good to have this kind of burning method but doesnt automatically means that price would be going up.
It all matters with the demand because there wouldnt be still no value of a coin on which demand isnt really there compared into those who do have big
total supply but the demand is high then expect that the value would really be much better.

[Kavelj22]

All in all burning needs to stop being a buzzword and start being something great again. BNB is the most famous one, very very recently the other day Binance burned literally millions of dollars in a single day, that is the proof that burning could be good, they are actually making it very scarce with this method and the value goes up thanks to it, that is how burning should be done.

Then why not thinking that Binance is using the same as other fake projects you have described. I read your comment by the hope to see why the burn can be a development phase.
As you explained, this burn process becomes the hype. However we should distinguish between the projects decided to burn a portion from the total supply because of determined reasons and those who program the Burn event in their roadmap before even lunching the product.

[agustina2]

What do you think about burning coins? Does this really affect the market value of the coins?

Burning coins are always associated with the hype that the coin will rise in value. It's always what we see in some community discussion of a certain coin. They applied the idea the same in Economics there wherein when there's less supply, the coin will have a good value in the future.

For example, in Peculium, they recently burned a vast amount of supply and the devs themselves said that by doing that, Peculium will increase its price but nothing happened, or maybe just early to know the results.

In the end, we have the final statement regarding this topic.

[Cadaver20]

Not all coin burning is good.  Burning means taking some coins out of circulation and sending them to another address which no one has access to. As a result, coins are declining in circulation and prices are rising to increase demand. Many new coins try to take advantage of this. Burning some good old coin is good.

[aprilnot]

Broadly speaking Burn tokens can affect market prices from a coin. This might be the fastest strategy increasing prices on the market. Many projects have use this way and proved successful. But I don't really like this, Burn tokens only causes a moment of hype. After all that price will not change much. I prefer to observe a growing project because of its progress, from the project that only runs in place, but suddenly burns tokens just to make a new hype.

[Semar Mesem]

Recently, many projects have announced the burning of coins, but not everyone understands what this means.

This is a process by which cryptocurrency miners or developers get rid of a certain amount of tokens by sending them to addresses that are not accessible to anyone. The burning of coins is being implemented not because of the low viability of the project, but rather because of the desire of the creators of cryptocurrencies for great prospects.

Thus, the developers are trying to reduce the total number of available coins, while the created shortage affects the growth of their value.

The burning of coins can talk about the upcoming expansion of the project and a possible increase in its value. For example, after the recent announcement of a collaboration between Polygon and Newscrypto, the latter announced that they decided to burn $ 10M worth of NWC tokens this year. Consequently, in the near future, we can see a significant growth of NWC price on this news. What do you think about burning coins? Does this really affect the market value of the coins?

I think this is a marketing strategy to sound awesome, the burning technique mostly occurs on the BSC platform and has proven to be effective in getting the eyes to go there, in general burning is a good thing to reduce stock that is too large because the community is still small.

[Pelana vreo]

If the developer plans to burn the coins circulating in the market, it will increase the price of the existing coins, some developers are now getting used to burning coins by placing the code in the smart contracts they have created, just like when we trade on the Dex platform, some coins that already have a token burning system will reduce the number of tokens when we trade. This has been done by many developers to keep the coin price from falling easy dump