Recently, the crypto community has been buzzing about an interesting topic—the value of the burn mechanism. The incident started when a well-known project founder, Siyuan, decided to burn all the donations received. This decision sparked quite a bit of discussion. Industry veterans quickly voiced their support, believing that the true purpose of donations should be determined by the recipients, rather than being dictated by the donors' expectations. Instead of transferring funds to other departments or teams, burning tokens can be a more straightforward and transparent way to handle the funds, potentially reducing future management complexity.

Behind this news lies a bigger issue—the profound impact of token burning on the ecosystem. Several mainstream public chains burn billions of tokens each quarter. This is not just simple "burning," but a proactive deflationary strategy. What does deflation mean? It means the total supply of tokens decreases, making the circulating supply relatively scarce, which directly affects the asset value for holders.

Interestingly, many people equate burning with wastefulness, but this is a misunderstanding of token economics. The original purpose of periodic burning mechanisms is to counteract inflation by reducing supply. From the holder's perspective, their proportion of tokens increases, which is a tangible benefit. Industry leaders have even publicly thanked all ecosystem participants involved in burning—this proactive tightening strategy helps maintain the long-term value of the tokens.

So, the question is: how will a continuous deflationary mechanism change the entire market's game logic? Is burning truly beneficial, or is it just psychological reassurance? Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments.