Burning feature is not utility

[Z390]

Someone was trying to give me investment advice and he keeps repeating the part about burning features, this was where I lose my cool, do you know how foolish it sounds when all you have to tell me about a new project is that it has a huge burning feature?

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

[1715566369]

1715566369

[1715566369]

1715566369

[1715566369]

1715566369

[1715566369]

1715566369

[1715566369]

1715566369

[Coin_trader]

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

It’s really absurd for a new project to have a huge burning feature because they should just lower the total token supply as part of their tokenomics if they will burn them immediately right after the token sales. Most of the project that doing this kind of scheme are those meme shitcoins that allocate trillion or more tokens of their supply so that they can easily sell it during their token sale since newbie thinks that the price is still “cheap” and there’s a lot of room for profit when the price move to a cents or dollar which doesn’t happened most the time.

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

They are obsessed on token burn feature because they believe that price will pump when the supply is cut. Token burn feature is the favorite feature of scammer because they can easily fool newbie that the price will pump by a series of token burn same with what the scam Luna holder doing after the main team abandoned the old project. Lunc has a token burn feature now hoping to burn those excessive supply that came from the failed UST/Luna protocol before. I doubt that token burn is really helpful and the only project that I know that has a successful token burn feature is BNB since they have steady income from the exchange.

[summonerrk]

Someone was trying to give me investment advice and he keeps repeating the part about burning features, this was where I lose my cool, do you know how foolish it sounds when all you have to tell me about a new project is that it has a huge burning feature?

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

Reduction of the sentence. Some developers burn tokens to make the cryptocurrency more scarce.
Increasing the value of cryptocurrency. A reduction in supply provokes an increase in the price of an asset, as was the case with large projects: Binance Coin, Ethereum.  At first, young projects attract investors with a low price, and then developers burn tokens so that the cost rises sharply.
The creators of Binance Coin (BNB) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) were among the first to do this. The developers decided to take this step in order to reduce the number of offers, which was followed by a rise in the value of coins. That is why many not very knowledgeable investors are happy about burning tokens.

[drwhobox]

LOL, in the first place, why do they come with such a huge supply and later they have to burn the token to balance it? The more the token supply is, the more they get in their pocket.
It is a trap for investors, token burn cannot be a feature, limited supply is a feature.

[cryptoaddictchie]

Someone was trying to give me investment advice and he keeps repeating the part about burning features, this was where I lose my cool, do you know how foolish it sounds when all you have to tell me about a new project is that it has a huge burning feature?

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

Actually you are right. If thats a feature then Im not sure why they are creating a lot of supply in the first place. Does this will do good for the project since we are inline with the idea of law of supply and demand as the supply gets shorter it tends to go up or become valuable but we should be focusing more on the utility itself. Its rather a feature (not special) than a utility.

[Bttzed03]

~ Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply?

Taking it from the shiba playbook or other tokens with a huge supply that pumped. Along with the token burning, you often see marketing captions like 'the next shiba or babydoge'. They're more obsessed with getting lucky than any of those token features. It's a gamble they're willing to play.

[Upgrade00]

• Burning tokens,
• Locking tokens for a certain period of time after purchase,
• Offering extra tokens for staking your purchased tokens

These are all ways projects use to try and look profitable and attractive to investors and attract new ones. It doesn't offer practical benefits and would not make a shit project any better in the long run.
In a time where there are so many projects, anything to stand out from the rest is a welcome idea.

[Crypt0Gore]

• Burning tokens,
• Locking tokens for a certain period after purchase,
• Offering extra tokens for staking your purchased tokens

These are all ways projects use to try and look profitable and attractive to investors and attract new ones. It doesn't offer practical benefits and would not make a shit project any better in the long run.
In a time where there are so many projects, anything to stand out from the rest is a welcome idea.

You have a point, but only about those project developers that are not serious with their work, have you put yourself in the same spot as a developer? I believe you will know how it feels doing so, if Binance can use the burning of tokens then any project can use it, no smart developer prays for token value free fall, there as to be reasons why investors would decide to hold the tokens for long term and that's how staking and locking tokens are reasonable.

Some said they release large max amounts of tokens and start burning them to look cool or attract investors, well I have seen projects with low max supply in millions that still use burning.

[wheelz1200]

Someone was trying to give me investment advice and he keeps repeating the part about burning features, this was where I lose my cool, do you know how foolish it sounds when all you have to tell me about a new project is that it has a huge burning feature?

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

Good that you can see through that mess.  You are right it's not a feature it's a ploy to artificially raise the price.  Any project that manipulates their own supply and price is not serious they are in it for the cash grab.  Why build in the supply only to burn it.  Makes zero practical sense.

[so98nn]

It won’t make difference if token emission is unlimited, for example in case of stable coin when emission is almost unlimited you cant expect anything from the coin burn because that amount is anyways going to replace over the time. However in case of coins with limited supplies one can expect real effect. This can be seen with the time and with multiple burns as the project proceeds months after months or years. This is in relation with the projects coin and it’s demand-supply. The lower it gets and the higher the popularity of project it sure makes lot of difference when they burn it. 

[dothebeats]

I guess they believe that coins with such feature tend to get more control in terms of value, as they are locked into the thinking that less supply = more demand = more value. That doesn't work that way if there aren't that much people interested in the coin, and if the utility is nowhere to be found, why would people really want to snag that coin out anyway? Most of them wants the profit anyway so they wouldn't really care much about utility. Besides, if the coin needs to burn tokens, that means there's something wrong with how they get the supply out.

[Jackl87]

Someone was trying to give me investment advice and he keeps repeating the part about burning features, this was where I lose my cool, do you know how foolish it sounds when all you have to tell me about a new project is that it has a huge burning feature?
Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply? It makes no difference and still won't stop a project from dying or even getting you scammed, burning won't keep a project alive, the projects that are worth using the burn feature should be those with very good utility already.

I totally agree, the projects that are listing burning events as one of their main features are nothing but useless meme-coins that nobody needs. You always have to differentiate here though i think. For example BNB is doing burns too and i don't know the exact number but they have burned BNB worth millions and millions of dollars so far. So there some significant value has been burned which definitely can have an impact on the longterm price of the project and is good for every holder of BNB.
But in the case of a useless shit-coin that has billions of tokens it doesn't matter if they are burning 1 million every months or so. It still remains a useless shit coin that nobody needs and the burning will not change anything about that.

[Blitzboy]

Yeah, I completely understand your frustration with the whole burning feature craze. It's definitely not the only factor to consider when investing in a project. In fact, it's just a marketing trick for some projects to attract new investors.

I totally agree that new projects shouldn't be solely relying on a burning feature to make it successful. Instead, they should focus on developing a solid product with real-world use cases and a well thought out tokenomics plan. This is what will actually drive the value and success of the project in the long run, not a flashy token burn feature.

Unfortunately, there are still a lot of new investors who fall for these gimmicks, and that's why scammers keep using it as a tactic. That's why it's always important to do your own research and due diligence before investing in any project, and not just blindly follow the hype around burning features.

[SUPERSAIAN]

These burning jobs are all part of the game. What's the use of creating billions of supplies and then burning them? They just take advantage of the phenomenon of that word. We burned this quarter so what happened next? Some tokens only set up the game by burning. Some use it as a tool like bnb or other big coins. To look attractive, it has to go out of the way, projects are completely copy sales tactics, creativity is very little.

[blockman]

Why are newbies so obsessed with burning off part of a token supply?

It's because they think that whenever a project burns its supply, the price will certainly go up. But that's not really a guaranteed thing for all the projects.
The top ones are almost certain that the effect will be eventually good but for the others, it's not what they're anticipating to happen. And not just burning, also the same goes for halving. For bitcoin, halving is known to be one major drivers of price push but for the other altcoins, it's also not guaranteed.