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
Topic: Why is burning coins good - page 6. (Read 1159 times)
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.
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. 
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.
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. 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?
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? 
~
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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.
Burning coins is good for old top coins. This reduces the total supply of tokens and increases the price. But burning a new coin is not very effective. Because they have huge total supply. As a result, burning a few coins can have no effect on the total supply and price.
Even burning is good for many projects but still we have to understand all this is also creating some hype which is not good because peoples not understanding this all and investing in hype which still not beneficial for them. Burning could be helpful in only better use case of projects because if your use case is still not good then surely this burning is also not going to have any impact on this project, it is just because of shilling and having some short term benefit which is never been good idea.As we already have some good examples from different members, burning could be useful in only case you are doing this all by demand and supply but if you already have some very big supply then this burning could be helpful until you reach on your better demand.
Yes, I would not say that only recently, it was from the very beginning of smart contracts.The same binance burns tokens on a quarterly basis and everyone is used to it.This is good in all aspects, since the emission is reduced and in the future there may be a shortage,and this is only for a hand to everyone who invests for a long period.
Not all coin burning is good. Burning means taking some coins out of circulation and sending them to another address which no one has access to. As a result, coins are declining in circulation and prices are rising to increase demand. Many new coins try to take advantage of this. Burning some good old coin is good.
But that is the thing, by burning coins the developers are reducing the supply but this has no effect on the demand, now some may expect that the reduction in the supply could be enough to make the price of the coin to go up as the demand remains the same, but we must understand that things are not so straightforward.If the amount of coins in an exchange does not change and the demand does not change either even if half of the supply is burned then the price of the coin will remain the same, so this shows that many times when developers announce something like this they are trying to create hype and the expectation the price will go up, so to me it is just another way to try to manipulate the market to their advantage.
I personally believe that if it was done in any other way then it could have been fine. However the problem with the burning tokens is the fact that the burning is not done to the tokens that we see on the market anyway, which means that it is not something that is a "supply" for us, sure it changes the number on the data pages but the reality is that what do we even get rid of?
Tokens at the hands of the project owners, that money wasn't there to be bought by anyone anyway. Like BNB that binance burns, was that on the market? Was it traded? It wasn't, it was already in their treasury waiting to get burned. So normally if you make the supply lower, then demand doesn't need to change, but here they don't lower the supply at all.
The only way for this to produce an increase in the price is if people see this as a positive news and then begin to buy more of the coin with the hopes it goes up in value, and as the demand increases and the supply at the exchanges remains the same then an increase in the price happens, mostly because of hype of course.
Burning coins is good for old top coins. This reduces the total supply of tokens and increases the price. But burning a new coin is not very effective. Because they have huge total supply. As a result, burning a few coins can have no effect on the total supply and price.
Burning coins is a classic way, developers always doing that for marketing plans, which is nothing but to increase the hype of investors and think this is an opportunity to increase the value of the coin on the exchange market by considering max supply and supply circulation. is this good? I believe for long term yes, but for short term it's just a temporary pump because of the hype during the event
Many people say that burning coins is good because the total supply of coins will decrease so that the coins are not widely circulated in various exchanges, on the other hand the demand or buyers of these coins increases so that there is a shortage of coins and causes the price of these coins to be very expensive.
Not all coin burning is good. Burning means taking some coins out of circulation and sending them to another address which no one has access to. As a result, coins are declining in circulation and prices are rising to increase demand. Many new coins try to take advantage of this. Burning some good old coin is good.
But that is the thing, by burning coins the developers are reducing the supply but this has no effect on the demand, now some may expect that the reduction in the supply could be enough to make the price of the coin to go up as the demand remains the same, but we must understand that things are not so straightforward.If the amount of coins in an exchange does not change and the demand does not change either even if half of the supply is burned then the price of the coin will remain the same, so this shows that many times when developers announce something like this they are trying to create hype and the expectation the price will go up, so to me it is just another way to try to manipulate the market to their advantage.
I personally believe that if it was done in any other way then it could have been fine. However the problem with the burning tokens is the fact that the burning is not done to the tokens that we see on the market anyway, which means that it is not something that is a "supply" for us, sure it changes the number on the data pages but the reality is that what do we even get rid of?
Tokens at the hands of the project owners, that money wasn't there to be bought by anyone anyway. Like BNB that binance burns, was that on the market? Was it traded? It wasn't, it was already in their treasury waiting to get burned. So normally if you make the supply lower, then demand doesn't need to change, but here they don't lower the supply at all.
Not all coin burning is good. Burning means taking some coins out of circulation and sending them to another address which no one has access to. As a result, coins are declining in circulation and prices are rising to increase demand. Many new coins try to take advantage of this. Burning some good old coin is good.
But that is the thing, by burning coins the developers are reducing the supply but this has no effect on the demand, now some may expect that the reduction in the supply could be enough to make the price of the coin to go up as the demand remains the same, but we must understand that things are not so straightforward.If the amount of coins in an exchange does not change and the demand does not change either even if half of the supply is burned then the price of the coin will remain the same, so this shows that many times when developers announce something like this they are trying to create hype and the expectation the price will go up, so to me it is just another way to try to manipulate the market to their advantage.
Jump to: