2026-01-14 07:26:35

There are many misconceptions about token burning. First, it’s important to understand that when you donate to a project or developer, how they use the funds is their own choice. You cannot force them to do things your way just because you donated money.

The current situation is quite clear— a developer explicitly stated they do not want to be associated with a certain meme coin, and that’s their stance, which should be respected. Otherwise, donating to project teams or platform staff could cause complications for the company. Looking at it from another perspective makes it understandable.

Regarding burning itself, many people think it’s a waste, but that’s not true. Take a major public chain as an example: the value of tokens burned each quarter exceeds $1 billion. This burning directly reduces the total circulating supply, creating a deflationary effect. For token holders, the tokens in their hands become relatively more valuable. As a holder of such tokens, I actually welcome any form of burning mechanism because ultimately, it benefits us long-term holders.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
10
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MysteriousZhang

· 3h ago

That's right, this logic should have been popularized long ago. Donating money and still wanting to dictate how others spend it—this mindset really needs to change. I also support the destruction mechanism. Deflation directly benefits long-term holders, no problem. But let me think about it, it still depends on how the project team views this matter. Otherwise, it might turn into negative news and harm the ecosystem. It seems some people still haven't understood what respecting developers' autonomy means. A destruction scale of hundreds of millions of dollars is indeed intense. This is the proper value support.

View OriginalReply0

ImpermanentLossFan

· 01-14 13:17

That's right, donating money and then trying to dictate how others should use it is indeed problematic. The destruction mechanism has always been a good way to achieve deflation, and token holders are definitely the winners. This developer's attitude is worth respecting; if it doesn't involve relationships, then there's no need to entangle, nothing to fuss over. A destruction amount in the billion-dollar range shows that this mechanism is really working. It's just that they haven't understood the economic principles, still tangled up in whether it's wasteful or not. Long-term holders love to see destruction events like this; it's directly beneficial.

View OriginalReply0

ser_ngmi

· 01-14 09:19

Haha, the developer attitude is right here, and now you're still bringing meme coins into the picture? Can't you respect their choice?

View OriginalReply0

consensus_whisperer

· 01-14 07:56

Haha, if the developer refuses, then they refuse. Why force a binding? Those who try to use donations to morally pressure others are truly surreal.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeAssassin

· 01-14 07:53

Haha, developers just don't want to touch meme coins, that's all. Respect that, why insist on doing it your way? I'm supportive of token burns; the deflationary effect indeed benefits holders, and in the long run, we make money. Donating to project teams shouldn't be used to manipulate them. This logic needs to be clear. I just like this straightforward attitude, not associating with trash coins. A quarterly burn of ten billion dollars—that's truly responsible to the holders. The problem is most people still don't understand the purpose of burning; it's really frustrating. Fewer coins mean what we hold becomes more valuable. Isn't that a simple principle? Honestly, it's just about not wanting to part with that small donation and expecting them to listen—probably not very realistic.

View OriginalReply0

BrokeBeans

· 01-14 07:52

Honestly, after making a donation, still wanting to tell others how to spend it—this mindset is really starting to crack. Is it that hard to respect the developer's choices? Bro, burning tokens is essentially leverage for us long-term holders—wake up. Deflation, to put it simply, is just a disguised dilution of air coins. Those in the know are secretly laughing. Don’t keep shouting about waste all the time. With a quarterly burn of a billion dollars, you tell me it’s waste? I just don’t get it. Donating money and still demanding features—just like those annoying client-side bosses. The most loved word by holders is "burn," no doubt.

View OriginalReply0

Blockchainiac

· 01-14 07:42

Haha, really, a bunch of people start pointing fingers after donating money. This mindset needs to change. This is how you should understand token burning: only then can the coins in my hands appreciate in value. Simple and straightforward, but true. It's normal for developers not to want to get involved with meme coins. Anyone would be annoyed to be so hijacked. The deflationary effect is the real key; burning at the scale of hundreds of millions of dollars truly doesn't need to be hyped. Basically, long-term holders get the gains, while short-term speculators get cut off. This is the market.

View OriginalReply0

BlockchainTherapist

· 01-14 07:42

Haha, developers just don't want to deal with that coin, they simply don't want to deal with it. Why should they have to accept others' kindness?

View OriginalReply0

MevHunter

· 01-14 07:33

Haha, okay, finally someone has explained this thoroughly. Destruction is deflation. How can anyone still think it's a waste? Donating money and then telling others what to do? That logic is really amazing. If developers say they don't want to play, then they don't play. Is respecting the effort really that hard? Quarterly destruction of a billion dollars... Really, long-term holders are winning big. This is what passive income is all about.

View OriginalReply0

Degentleman

· 01-14 07:32

Haha, if the developer rejects it, then it's rejected. What's there to fuss over... Respect their choice, brother.

View OriginalReply0