Truth about burning off coins

[Stanlo]

Burning off coins, everything newbies want to hear about this days, even if a shitcoin introduced a burn feature newbies will start FOMOing on this, the truth about burning supplies is complicated

Burning features shouldn't come first, good utility should take the front.

Devs intentionally release coins with quadrillion max supply and put burn by its side to create hypes and newbies will think oh I can get millions of this coin with just 20$ easily before burning off starts.

I'm just saying newbies should care more about a project features and utilities rather than burning max supply, you have been fooled if you are thinking this way, coinmarketcap is full of such coins especially the meme coins

[cryptoaddictchie]

I'm just saying newbies should care more about a project features and utilities rather than burning max supply, you have been fooled if you are thinking this way, coinmarketcap is full of such coins especially the meme coins

Some coins have burned allocations and its quite good actually but you are also got a point. Newbies should not blindly get attracted with this though looking into the use case of the tokens. But I disagree that most projects with burn function are all created to game or make hype over their investors. What if the token has been burned worth a lot now? Is it still about money being burned out of nothing?

It also show sometime projects sincerity that they are focusing on something and don't care about extra tokens that might be used for corruption.

[tranthidung]

Burning off coins, everything newbies want to hear about this days, even if a shitcoin introduced a burn feature newbies will start FOMOing on this, the truth about burning supplies is complicated

It is psychological effect. With altcoins, that effects should be bigger - especially in bull market - because they can burn 20%, 50% of their total supply. With Bitcoin, there is no burns but its 4-year halvings attract new investors, create FOMO effects and with support from social media & government ban events, we have more investors then diamond hands each year. Together, it helps Bitcoin to have big bull run each 4 years.

Burning features shouldn't come first, good utility should take the front.

This. Initially, features make sense. You can not say a coin with total supply at 10M will have higher price than coin with 50M in total supply. What usecases of those projects will decide prices, not total supply.

Total supply has its meaning because it attributes to the marketcap of one project, that in turn will show us how big or small a project is in marketcap. This cause to the level of difficulty to manipulate its price and it is what market makers consider.

[pooya87]

Burning coins has been an old method used by pumpers to try and hype their shitcoin in order to get some more money out. It is always used as the last resort to get one last pump out of their shitcoin before it dies or at least continues dumping more.
Besides it is not like they are burning coins they acquired through work! The coins being burnt were created out of thin air in first place so it doesn't cost them a thing, they can also create more out of thin air in the future since these shitcoins are either too small or too centralized that can be changed easily.

[YOSHIE]

I personally have never believed in the coin burning method that always makes a scene for crypto lovers, I think it's a joke.

Honestly I prefer to invest in coins that have the lowest Supply, rather than coins that have a Supply of mx billion, of course if they really make a certain coin that is of interest in the market and the price is high of course they shouldn't create a coin to billion, just create 100,000 coins, it must be a high price.

For that I do not believe in such coins, after being created with a large capacity, then burned, what the hell is this.
So, why create coins in the end burn.

[Stalker22]

It is pretty fucking obvious to everyone that this has always been just a pump and dump scheme. I agree with YOSHIE, why create coins in the first place and then burn them later? In my opinion, it is just a marketing gimmick and nothing more.

[BayAngelo]

In other words, Burning is Useless. it makes no sense to burn tokens after minting. iF a project has an idea of burning in it's roadmap. there is no need to mint the huge amount. it is true that burning reduces circulation but WE HAVE NEVER CONSIDERED new people joining cryptos and wanting to invest. the question is, Have project developers considered the newbies joining the crypto space before burning their token to reduce circulation.

Also, some burning process leads to price increase since low supply always influences price increase. at this stage, newbies with little portfolios are scared of investing believe the price is out of reach.

this is the main reason I like ADA.
In summary for me. if you have plans of burning your token, why not minting the exact total token you want to keep and focus on your project adoption. it makes no sense to me burning token. it is useless.

[hatshepsut93]

good utility should take the front.

Good advice in theory, but doesn't work on practice. Newbies don't understate how to measure a coin's utility, and they get easily misled by marketing materials or shill articles/videos that make them believe that they are investing in a "good project".

[kryptocanon]

You're fantastically on point. I rather focus on investing on a project with real use cases than shit coins that only pump and dump by whales.

[CryptopreneurBrainboss]

Altcoin creators be like, Bitcoin halves every four years what can we do to have similar effect (reduce number of coins in circulation)? Best they can come up with is creating unnecessary extra coins so they can burn them to create hype and people fall for this everytime. What they don't realized is the demand of Bitcoin is what increase the price mainly and not that there are less Bitcoin been introduced to the market.

The burning of tokens is just a marketing strategy which isn't really necessary especially if you create your project in a way it attract utilization to itself and not just been good for speculation purpose (trading on exchanges). Binance burns their token quarterly which increase demand for it too speculation purpose which is barely a manipulation tactics if you ask me. The demand don't just increase since there aren't new development to create utility per se but the tokens in circulation decrease benefiting their stake holders as price tends to rise.

[Darker45]

Majority of altcoins nowadays are living merely on hype, marketing, and promotion. To many coins, that's actually all they've got. Perhaps utility follows, perhaps not. Developers are simply creating coins and encourage people to buy them, not because there is a particular use for it but because the price is said to be growing in the future. Why? Because more people will buy it. That's just actually the point. Token burning is just one part of this whole shit show.  

Anyway, as newbies, they shouldn't be hunting for potential altcoins. It's not their business.

[Bitbtc8]

A project can still fail even if it has good utility, I think what should come first is team work, if a project has good utility and no good team to handle the project it's still going to be a failure, it's better to look into how the team are preparing to handle the project

[Mpamaegbu]

If I get to know that a project intends to burn it's token supply after listing, it tends to trigger the suspicion button in me. I wearies me and I instantly would want to steer clear of such project. My first thought would be "why didn't the project reduce its supply before listing it?" It's a psychological thing and I don't like projects playing that type of game with investors, making them believe there could be reduction in token supply. It's the same way a lot of people are hodling Shiba, Safemoon or any other memetoken, believing the project will at one time burn it's supply.

They forget in a hurry that most of the projects that later burn usually do a ratio type of calculation and may even offer something like 200(old tokens) for 1(new token). So, even if any of the memetokens decide to burn, those hodling them shouldn't be surprised what reduction they would get.

But if an existing project decides to burn, that's the one that moves me because I know it's going to be genuine. Beyond all this is the need for investors to look into use-case than assumption that projects may burn later.

[Little Mouse]

Maybe I'm off topic here-
I'm active in a local Facebook group and for the last few days, I'm only watching one thing- Shiba Inu this, shiba inu that and I was only saying one thing. Don't get busted. Burning coin doesn’t mean anything unless the coin has its real use. But sadly newbies never understand. They see the quick gain and fall after that. But in long, they get busted.