Why is burning coins good

[nekorakoeora]

I think burning these coins is a trick to raise the value. The development team deliberately allocates coins in large quantities for the purpose. It could be said that this is not a healthy system. If the coin looks good then even with its value then it will grow because of the ecosystem, not because of burning.

[tvplus006]

I think burning these coins is a trick to raise the value. The development team deliberately allocates coins in large quantities for the purpose. It could be said that this is not a healthy system. If the coin looks good then even with its value then it will grow because of the ecosystem, not because of burning.

At a certain point, the team has a desire to stop the unlimited issue of coins in order to create a shortage of supply in the market. Such decisions will definitely lead to an increase in the price of the coin. This is exactly what we are seeing with the ETH coin, in which part of the commission after the London fork is burned.

[FanEagle]

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

Wrong. Everyone is well aware of this and probably those who joined this crypto space last week might not be aware of this. These days, coins and tokens which are trying to create a fake hype out of burning process are not getting pumped because you cannot keep cheating people with empty promises forever. Burning might have worked for some time but I am sure it won't here after (at least for new projects).

If you are planning to choose your investments based on the roadmap which is having lots of scheduled burning process then probably you may burn your fingers by touching them .

A good project never needs any such non-developmental procedures to create artificial demand. Burning must be one of non-developmental activity but unfortunately even binance is doing it time to time, not sure why they need it considering their reputation and userbase.

[DarkDays]

I think burning these coins is a trick to raise the value. The development team deliberately allocates coins in large quantities for the purpose. It could be said that this is not a healthy system. If the coin looks good then even with its value then it will grow because of the ecosystem, not because of burning.

At a certain point, the team has a desire to stop the unlimited issue of coins in order to create a shortage of supply in the market. Such decisions will definitely lead to an increase in the price of the coin. This is exactly what we are seeing with the ETH coin, in which part of the commission after the London fork is burned.

I think burning is not the only reason Ethereum is getting more and more money fuelled into it. There's the combination of improved investors' sentiment and the fact that we are getting ever closer to v2.0 and as we know people like to be early speculators.

Ethereum has been popular for a long time and because it is ranked the number 2 coin, when people feel optimistic about the future of crypto will naturally invest in ETH. From what I've seen the burn itself didn't seem to have had that positive impact on fees like many anticipated but it is still a work in progress I guess

[Jose Mourinho]

Before now it use to be necessary but lately I am seeing tokens with supply as high as trx or more than without any burn and their price still manages to ho up, burning coins use to be one of the way to increase a coin value and price but this days most project with huge supply are doing even better without any burn mechanism, so I don't think burning a coin is still that important as it use to back in the days.

I agree with what you said, but Burning coins is one of the best ways to increase the quality and quantity of tokens, of course tokens that have a limited supply have a greater chance than tokens that have an abundant supply, the most obvious example is BTC, with the amount  a little supply makes the price of BTC rise very high, as well as ETH after several burns, the price can also skyrocket.

[mbakruroh]

~

Many aspects affect the value of crypto, one of which is the burn system. Staking, and trading competition also makes the coin price increase. Staking can reduce the circulation of crypto on the exchange, and trading competition makes people vying to buy in hopes of getting bonuses from their trading results. Apart from that, certain information can also increase or decrease the price of crypto. Suppose Elon Musk will invest in Bitcoin as much as $1 million. This kind of information can increase the price of Bitcoin. Likewise, negative information circulating in the community can also make crypto prices drop.

[adzino]

Before now it use to be necessary but lately I am seeing tokens with supply as high as trx or more than without any burn and their price still manages to ho up, burning coins use to be one of the way to increase a coin value and price but this days most project with huge supply are doing even better without any burn mechanism, so I don't think burning a coin is still that important as it use to back in the days.

Lol, nowadays those projects are burning tokens so that people think that this will cause the price to increase massively and they will end up FOMOing causing the price to pump. A shit project (we can see a lot of meme projects) comes up, they start with a huge supply, they start creating a hype, the cause the price to go up and then when people start losing interest, the developers decide to play their trump card, burn the coins. And more people start investing again hoping that the price will go up after the burn.

I agree with what you said, but Burning coins is one of the best ways to increase the quality and quantity of tokens, of course tokens that have a limited supply have a greater chance than tokens that have an abundant supply, the most obvious example is BTC, with the amount  a little supply makes the price of BTC rise very high, as well as ETH after several burns, the price can also skyrocket.

How does burning tokens increases the quality of the project?

[RussianEnglishTranslation]

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 the solution NEAR protocol is doing is the best option, burning tokens like what Ethereum is doing with gas fees is the second best option. NEAR gives gas fees to the DApp developer. This helps pay for server costs on platforms like Ref Finance and Mintbase.

[Karina0315]

The primary objective of coin burn is to regulate the supply and thereby stabilize the price. The process is similar to demonetization of currency or buy-back of shares. When the developers/miners burn the coins, the number of coins available in the digital currency market reduces.

[Monica301]

It is 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.

[arifteguhr]

The primary objective of coin burn is to regulate the supply and thereby stabilize the price. The process is similar to demonetization of currency or buy-back of shares. When the developers/miners burn the coins, the number of coins available in the digital currency market reduces.

If it's only for the purpose of reducing the supply of supplies, it does look good, but it would be better if the decreasing supply can also increase the demand so that it can greatly affect the price too, but if the demand is still the same as before, then the effect on the price will not be would be too big.

[Ucy]

It pretty much depends on demand. Even if you burn 80% of the total supply but no one is buying the remaining supply to do something useful with it the coin would still be worthless. Besides, I really don't like the idea of deliberately "burning coins" that are not bad yet, just to increase their price. I think a better mechanism should be determined by rules, could be automatic and decentralized. .. You could have rules that automatically increase or reduce supply if demand is too high or too low. This should also help the price movements to be sustainable and moderate.
It should not be easy for developers to wakeup one day and decide to burn public coins. I'm not sure I can use such coin unless it's done through strong public consensus

[magneto]

Anyone can create a token and burn a portion of it.

This doesn't create value for the token. People are confusing utility with scarcity in my opinion.

I could create a super rare token with a circulating supply of 1 token forever. But at the end of the day, if it doesn't have any real usage, then it's not going to have intrinsic value at all.

[ningrum]

The primary objective of coin burn is to regulate the supply and thereby stabilize the price. The process is similar to demonetization of currency or buy-back of shares. When the developers/miners burn the coins, the number of coins available in the digital currency market reduces.

If it's only for the purpose of reducing the supply of supplies, it does look good, but it would be better if the decreasing supply can also increase the demand so that it can greatly affect the price too, but if the demand is still the same as before, then the effect on the price will not be would be too big.

When burning is not always accompanied by an increase in demand and things like this I think have often happened,
and what you say is also true it won't have a big effect on the price,
but at least when we burn we have hope for the price

[fadil46]

When burning is not always accompanied by an increase in demand and things like this I think have often happened,
and what you say is also true it won't have a big effect on the price,
but at least when we burn we have hope for the price

A better hope after being burned also still depends on two things, first on market conditions and the second is on the performance of the team who must really be able to show accurate evidence about the burning so that everyone's interest can be focused on the token or coin that is being burned.

[Uang_kartal]

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?

Burning is common practice..even though I'm a newbie, I know it's only shotcoin and ico..but my favorite tokens like BNB regularly burn every 3 months to get the best value for this bnb holder..even though prof of burn is not the same as prof of fork but in line with prof of stake .. even though we are foreign and worried about the burning process I think it is safe for tokens with strong fundamentals.. while waiting for the burning process brother usually always monitors charts or analyzes other coins / tokens?

[JahriMeayer]

I think this is another strategy to promote a project and draw people concentration! If any new project is good, then they don't need to announcement of burning their coins! but they did cause they know, due to such news,, people will buy their coins crazily and thus project volume, price and liquidity automatically increase even before burning has done! Cause we all know what will happen after burning a portion of any coin!

[KaliLinux]

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.

I totally agree with what you said in terms of, I too believe that this is the new marketing strategy for the cryptocurrency Projects. I have always thought about it too, why don't they just print/mint the specific number of coins/tokens that the projects needs and roll from there, but I soon realized that this is the new marketing tool because those coins/token burned are actually valued based on the current price of the project and at the end of the day, they make the investors see that they are reducing $x total amount and making the project more valuable.  

[taufik0911]

burning coins is a good thing because by burning coins it will reduce the total supply of the coins while the demand remains
it will make the price rise due to limited supply
this is just a simple economic theory in sales

[geegaw]

burning coins is a good thing because by burning coins it will reduce the total supply of the coins while the demand remains
it will make the price rise due to limited supply
this is just a simple economic theory in sales

A basic and rudimentary theory in economic books but the effectiveness in practice is remarkable, almost any project where practicing with this theory can change their whole fate in a short time, the most typical is binance's BNB, working very hard in burning coins and every time the burn message is displayed, BNB is constantly being refined to become a more expensive product. However, to learn how to reduce the supply without going negative and forcing users, developers will need to implement more features to get their coins back, the wall of surrender is located at this point