Topic: Really Burn helps Token in positive way? - page 3. (Read 796 times)

If a coin is popular in the market and has a good value and a lot of investors for it, then it is natural that if the token is burned, the value of the token will increase a lot. Because burning will decrease the total supply of the coin and its demand will be high due to which the value of that coin will increase a lot.  But if you are talking about a new coin for which there are no investors, even if that coin is 99% burned, the price of that coin will not increase because there are no investors for it. Burn issue will only work in a positive way when that coin is already popular but I don't think burn issue will do any good for new and shit coins.

Burns have two effects.

• The fastest effect is on projects that are already on the hype. I mean trending projects that are always in the hot coins of every exchange. When such a project is already make a wave, the news of coin burn will surely create more demand because it is believed to trigger limited supply
• Another effect is in the case mentioned by Op. Shiba is no longer trending and no matter how much coins the developers burn, it can only make little/no difference until the bull run approaches. The burning will give holders of the coin the conviction to keep holding and potential buyers the will to buy against the bull run.

Yes, in terms of reducing the supply tokens that are circulating and pressing to encourage price movements, this is effective if the burned tokens have a large amount of the total supply made.
Of course, if you only rely on burning tokens, this will not have a significant affecting demand movement, because the demand is based on the use case on the token itself, which makes a reason for people to buy tokens for their needs in accessing the ecosystem offered in the project, but if it is only limited burning without an increase in utility in the token will make a temporary increase, because the use case of a limited token will make the token left, it may have to talk realistically in terms of the project long -term because if only relying on the burning of the token to suppress the movement it will be useless for the future, they can lose money.

That it is since some dumb buyers will think about that the pump will come next after the burning of tokens happen. They didn't know that this is just a band aid solution by devs so that they can attract new buyers to acquire there tokens.

Investors should see if there's relevance regarding on the devs action do since if they see that the volume is almost nothing and they do that activity then provably they are just fishing another investors and scam them. Maybe a buy back option with huge money used is good action since from this there's a chance that pump might happen.

Burning is one way of reducing the supply of the token.  So in the essence of supply and demand, burning is an artificial way of reducing the supply making the sell pressure to be eaten out while the demand pressure is increasing.

This also shows that the developer believes that the token in circulation is too much so there is this need for them to intervene and cut the existing supply.  I think rather then burning the token supply, the dev should work their ass out in creating use case for the token.  It will also give a better result if aside from burning tokens, the developer are creating partnership to different company and individual in utilizing the use case of the token.  After all, adoption pushes through when there is a need for an individual to have the tokens in their wallet.

well good thing nowadays not that many people are actually getting tricked by such trickery, majority of meme coin nowadays even if they tried to speak about it in their twitter about burning no one gives a damn really.
many already figured out that its just gimmick to attract attention and nothing more thats why even after the burning the coin just stuck.
the thing about these coin burning in general is that sometimes they are not so significant only burning some portion of coin, moreover when the devs could literally unlock some coins that might inflates the total circulating supply making the burning was rather kind of pointless, will instead make it looks like dumb af.

This is the way to divert the minds of the investors thinking that the price went high after but unfortunately, there is nothing new things happen as the price remains low. That is why I believe that a burning strategy is a fake promise that most of us had become a victim to such words. We realized that it was not the burning mechanism that can change the direction of the project but it was the potentiality and market contribution. Because no matter what the developers do, if it was shitcoin, it remains low value.

Oh, i forgot to add a token that at least to me makes most sense when it comes to burning. And that is UNU SED LEO (aka LEO). It differs from other tokens in a sense that fundamentals of it are centralized by design. Technically it doesn't have a limit on how far it could rise in price, because it's a token from Bitfinex and they are committed to buy it from the market with their exchange profits and burn it. They are very open about it and doing it all the time,

Difference on BNB burning is that binance has commited to burn 50% of the tokens while Bitfinex is going all the way with 100%. Now obviously they can't buy 100% as at some point the price rises so much when people set higher and higher sell orders when everyone who wanted to sell cheap has sold cheap.

Imho that's most positive tokenomics, even though it's based on the activity of centralized exchange.

The practice of burning for less popular cryptocurrencies, often referred to as "shitcoins," has sparked debates in the cryptocurrency community. Burning involves reducing the circulating supply of a token, theoretically leading to increased scarcity and potentially driving up its value. However, the effectiveness of burning largely depends on the underlying project's reputation and the presence of significant holders.

For a burning strategy to be impactful, the cryptocurrency project should have a solid reputation and a clear value proposition. Without these elements, burning may not have a meaningful impact on the token's price or utility. Additionally, if there are not enough significant holders or users actively participating in the project, the burning process might lack the desired effect.

A pertinent example is the case of Binance Coin (BNB), which has undergone burning events. Some skeptics argue that these burning events haven't resulted in significant price movements or utility enhancements for the token. They believe that burning in such cases could be perceived as more of a marketing tactic to generate hype and attract attention to the project, rather than a genuine mechanism for improving the token's fundamentals.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of burning as a strategy for lesser-known cryptocurrencies depends on various factors, including the project's reputation, the size and activity of its user base, and the overall value proposition it offers. Without a solid foundation and significant community support, burning might indeed be seen as an ineffective and superficial measure to create excitement around a particular token.

I know that in economics there is a law called supply and demand. So both are important for a coin to have a good value. Indeed, so many weak projects are highlighting this burning mechanism feature, and it's getting common already in the eyes of the public so it wasn't appealing anymore. It was still different if the projects has a unique use case. This makes them stand out even if they have a good number of supply.

A good project that has a burning mechanism aren't still exempted from a dump because it's a natural event of the market. The only way for a weak project to get a demand is if they have lots of budget to market their coin and to do some market manipulations.

Or better yet, this is the strategy of those projects who want to attract naive buyers.
Saying they are burning, to reduce its supply and so it will possibly contribute to its price increase.
However, we should take note that the increase may not only come from the decreasing supply.
But in most cases, it is how the team is progressing with their actual developments on the project.
Without visible movement on the platform, hard to expect a gradual increase on its price in the market.
Burning some of their supply will only help if they will also do some action on their coin itself.

Sometimes this is just a counter measure done by a dying project so that they can revive it back and maybe try to gain the attention of their old investor then convince them that there's something good to happen on their project and use that bull season as their main tool to hype the people following their project. Hard to find legit project nowadays and maybe for now its good to buy and trade any of those new crypto while they are in bullish condition since its hard to get stress when price drop came or it became a total scam.

It was before as I witness huge changes in its price but for now, it somewhat looks different. That is why I don't want to believe such words saying that it helps to a price increase because what I see is that it doesn't matter much many is the total supply, as long as it was a legit project, it gradually grows from time to time. In fact, so many projects have a huge market cap but still, they are able to pump during the bull season which means that they really have the potential despite it's number.

That's certainly true, mate. It's not about burning a coin's supply, but rather making it useful for the whole wide world. Without utility, I don't see crypto going anywhere soon. You can see why "meme" coins ultimately fail because of their speculative nature. They're only driven by hype, instead of concrete results that would change our world for the better.

That said, don't underestimate the power of burning on a coin or token's market price. It positively influences market prices, making the crypto asset more valuable over time. Depending on how much of the supply is circulating, the effects can be either immediate or take a longer time than usual. It's up to you to choose the right coins by doing your own research. As long as you don't invest more than what you can't afford to lose, nothing else matters. Just my thoughts

Perhaps, it was an attractive doings of these developers and promise positive results but as I see those projects that are into burning tokens, it looks like it only has less impact to nothing. Understanding the results, it means that burning tokens is no longer an effective way to increase price but for these developers to create a project that is playing an important roles in the crypto space. It doesn't matter if the supply is huge because it pumps when the demand is high and so the price.

I can't really point out if it's a good thing or a bad thing, I feel like it's going to be something to care about in the end but not in a good way or a bad way, I am not sure about that yet. Just make sure you follow it up, that's the point basically.

If it's a meme project than most likely result is that it will not be that much of a big deal at all, it will not really matter to you at all, it should be important to point out. I know that it will get some others to change the understanding of burn though, because BNB has burn too and that one is better. To be fair they burn what they have and not what's on the market anyway so it's not really that much quickly changing, but at least gets rid of some of the supply.

Logically if we look at the burning issue we have to say that yes burning can have a positive effect on the value of a token. Because it reduces the supply and increases the demand and the increase in demand is more important to increase the price. But if your supply is too high then I would think this burning process is just a show to attract some stupid investors. However, it also depends on how much burning will be done here. But as usual answer I would say yes burning has some positive impact

When it comes to prices, it fluctuates quite a bit and that is a natural thing, and sometimes burning is a trigger to maintain the hype for a project that they are doing can be trusted because burning is always there to limit project supply, this can be said to be manipulation and can be said to be a action to reduce supply of circulating tokens in order to get a price boost on the remaining supply of tokens, so it depends where you look at it, because this perception can go two different directions if you don't have the same mindset, Like BNB always burns every year, and things it will certainly encourage people to buy the coin, and have the thought that one day there will be a shortage of coins which will certainly put more demand pressure on the coin.

It's been an OG strategy to make a token pump. So so many projects before had done it even with the famous BNB, they are also burning supply but as time goes the expected pump in price because of the burning doesn't became into reality. Many project doesn't realize that demand and supply won't work unless there's a true demand on their token. They are simply burning tokens hoping that something got a glimpse of possible price increase. Shiba Inu is known for its aggresive burning but the we don't see massive increase on their token price, it became stable at a certain range at best.

LOL it burns independently, Many memecoins do this technique but they don't explain the mechanism in detail. Just burning the supply so it can reduce it.
Many noobs who end up getting caught up in memecoin do underhanded techniques and end up with a scam.
Apart from that, the technique used is not just burning, LOCk liquidity is also a way to attract new investors who don't understand anything about tokenomics and the mechanisms inside.
They don't know that Liquiditas can be drained if the largest token holder (ie the project dev) sells all of their holdings. this is just like Soft Rugpull done by the dev himself.