burned tokens = the project most likely trying to manipulate people into buying to manipulate price
a coin should not be burned - ever
i dont see any valid reason to do that really
Topic: token supply - page 3. (Read 768 times)
Because sometime agenda change and plans have not goes with their and this burning is somehow a strategy to make the community convince about the burning of funds of them to prove their seriousness but the truth is they just really fucked up and this method is an old trick already.
I will be amaze if the one their burning is on the team token and the one that circulates already. But I doubt they will do this.
I will be amaze if the one their burning is on the team token and the one that circulates already. But I doubt they will do this.
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
I think that is kind of strategy to attract investor. Not resist that burning token usually make developer can pump their token and who actually pump it is users who believe that it can be pumped because less supply and will make a lot of demands. 
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
I think that is kind of strategy to attract investor. Not resist that burning token usually make developer can pump their token and who actually pump it is users who believe that it can be pumped because less supply and will make a lot of demands. 
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
After I looked on the supply I looked on the project potential, what can it bring to the table and why and how this trillions or billions of supply will be used, it will be on the developer's wallet waiting for the right time to unload, that would be easy money for them and they ar enot really that serious but to have tons of money with their trillions supply. 
There are coin win infinite supply like Ethereum, Monero, Hrin etc. I think they are doing well. There is no problem with supply. If the project or the token/coin have real usage, they will be stay on the market. At the long run like after 5 year, infinite supply coin will face inflation.
They are doing well for this time but it doesn't even give guarantee of they will be doing well like this for the long term. I guess the inflation will give the long term effect. I just try to take a look at doge with its hyper inflation that always produce more and more coins everyday. The price is also going down too but it's not so fast consider it must be matched with total inflation of dogecoin that will always be generating in a day. 
You should first understand technically how tokens burning is donw. So far, I've not yet discovered how the token issuer can burn holder/investor tokens.
The burned coin/token does not belong to the investor/holder. This applies to coins/tokens belonging to the team or to coins seized by any means. This can only happen with the willingness of the investor/holder.I do not think that having a large total supply for a new token is a good idea. Most likely, the token price is going to drop to a minimum of 1 satoshi or even lower if it is possible on exchanges. The market is still too weak to have a large supply, even if they would get burned.
These are the figures resulting from the calculation of the projects themselves. It is calculated in accordance with its main points and future situation and so on. As long as the project power meets these figures, total supply will not be a problem.
That's right with what you say, and indeed almost all token makers burn tokens, to reduce the number of tokens and to increase the price of tokens, I think those are their ways to make tokens better, and maybe that is the only way. which is chosen in increasing the quality of the token.
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
This is a kind of strategy by some project they put a large token supply then hold a huge amount after several months or years they will burn supply to increase the price because people think burning supply will have a chance to increase the price this will serve also as a hype.
A large token supply in the tune of billions is not healthy for a new crypto project. Being that it will easily lose its value since the tokens are big compared to having a few million tokens.
That depends on the project how much they make tokens with the supply they want because the project always uses token lots for something else too.
After the project has been running for a long time, but tokens can also be burned because the reasons for the sales are not fulfilled, they will burn unsold tokens so that this can result in an increase also because the supply of tokens on the market is decreasing.
But sometimes with a lot of supply is not useful because of its large-scale mass sales.
That is the important point, burning tokens and unsold coins, which are used as reserves by dev for the benefit of project development, provide better transparency to investors. This can also be used to provide better price stability. Prices can go up more easily if other supporting factors are strong, one of which is a good and real product. After the project has been running for a long time, but tokens can also be burned because the reasons for the sales are not fulfilled, they will burn unsold tokens so that this can result in an increase also because the supply of tokens on the market is decreasing.
But sometimes with a lot of supply is not useful because of its large-scale mass sales.
I do not think that having a large total supply for a new token is a good idea. Most likely, the token price is going to drop to a minimum of 1 satoshi or even lower if it is possible on exchanges. The market is still too weak to have a large supply, even if they would get burned.
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
There is no use of creating huger supply of token like billions if there is no usage of the token, there are no products and services involves and they do not have in their roadmap that they are going to burn, I have seen so many coins like that going down the drain because there is no usage just a pump and dump game for developers.
That is a strategy from the team if they see no action for a long time. This will create buzz and attention for many investors that are also giving attention to such events like burning. And investors that are aware of what's the implications of token burning understands the importance of it that's why other altcoins that doesn't see good volume for their coin and market caps do this. Or the simplest reason why they've made billions of supply is that they've overestimated the value of their coin during creation.
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
Well, supply is nominal. It's not a "real" factor that underpins what is the coin's fundamentals.
For example, XRP obviously has a lot more adoption and use, as well as market cap, compared to something like Byteball. But XRP's supply is in the billions while Byteball, IIRC, isn't even in the millions. Does that make one coin/token inferior/superior to the other necessarily? I don't think so, at least.
In regards to burning, it depends on whether or not it is followed through with. If you buy into a token with the hope that some supply will be burned in the future, then it's extremely high risk.
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
they need to do that so the price could easily adjusted because those tokens are not gonna do anything and just makes worse so to avoid that, they burn the coins to stabilize the price that's from what i know. also with that huge amount of supply, burning 1% of the coins could not make those coins collapsed. 
total supply is very influential on the price of the token but if the token has no trader or investor. burning tokens will not affect the price but this is a strategy to attract investors, many have succeeded in using the method of burning tokens to raise the price of tokens
its cheating action to hide real value and pump it by fake moves like burning...
sometimes I think if you look at the amount of token supply in such a large amount that trillions and trillions after the project runs several months or years, the token will be burned, what for if you make tokens with a large supply, but will be burned, ...?
When mostly large number of token supply projects worthless after listing than team try to reduce token supply the only way of burn. Azbit burn 10 billion tokens because their token price low 20x from IEO price i think so they decide to burn.
NPXSXEM, NPXS burned several billions of tokens a couple of times. Total supply is highly affected in coin value.
The strategy of each project is different. Burning coins / tokens Actually this is an old trick, instead of making a lot of supplies for reasons of development and it turns out when it's time for coins / tokens to be burned. If you think carefully, deflation or burning is like no use, change is only temporary or not long, with the reason if it is not accompanied by other strategies, such as partnerships, technology updates, or optimal marketing. Burning in my opinion is legitimate, but other strategies are improved.
Jump to: