BURNING FALLACY
There is no point on adding deflationary mechanisms if the project mints new tokens at a higher rate than they are burnt, nor if the adoption and network traffic do not grow as well. Burning might lessen the impact of prices declines but only temporarily, as demand is what ultimately determines value.
You need both DEMAND and BURNING to lift PRICES. Artificial scarcity would not save a token when its price plummets, you till need a strong demand for anyone to come and buy down there.
Besides, burning is to a great extent symbolic. By sending tokens to a unusable address after they have been used, gives the impression they were consumed and not hoarded by recipients that might trigger a selloff if they were to liquidate their "inventory".
$BNB (BSC) and $TRX (TRON) have been the only networks I know of that has succeeded in sustaining price levels with a burning mechanism.
VALUE IS WHAT MATTERS. NO MATTER HOW SCARSE A THING IS, IT WOULD BE WORTHLESS IF NOBODY WANTS IT.
$OM team burnt a large portion of their stake in a failed attempt to restore confidence in its network after the pump/dump scandal early this year.
SHIB is an example of burning to compensate losses, not increase the token value.
by MAAM_A1©
