$INJ Here's a sharper English version:

Yazma

$INJ's biggest problem isn't the price — it's the tokenomics.

Injective started with a 100M token supply. Today, the project claims that roughly 6.8M INJ have been burned. Fair enough.

But here's the question:

If 6.8M tokens were burned, why is the circulating supply still around 100M instead of closer to 93M?

The answer is simple: while tokens are being burned, new tokens are also entering the system through staking emissions and other inflationary mechanisms.

Burning tokens with one hand while minting them with the other doesn't create the scarcity investors expect.

Now compare that to $GIGGLE.

When GIGGLE burns tokens, the impact is visible in the supply metrics. Investors can actually see scarcity being created. That's how a deflationary model is supposed to work.

With INJ, investors keep hearing about burns, supply squeezes, and deflation. Yet the numbers tell a different story:

• INJ burned: ~6.8M

• Circulating supply: ~100M

• Expected supply without new emissions: ~93M

At some point, investors stop listening to narratives and start looking at the math.

A burn mechanism only matters if it reduces net supply.

Otherwise, "deflation" is just a marketing slogan.

fraud scammer project trapped retails