VARIABLE ART

Why aren't more tokens buy and burn?

1. BNB has had this model for a while and been quite successful with it. Binance's market cap (even despite CZ being forced out) is nearly 2x Coinbase's.

2. It requires meaningful revenue to make a difference. Most centralized crypto companies (mostly exchanges) with meaningful revenue keep the revenue (and are not public). Tether gets to keep all of the float.

3. If you don't have meaningful revenue, then the market is likely to look at the low revenue and unclear prospects for growth (since most growth in crypto is tied to overall prices / sentiment vs. a repeatable sales and marketing function).

4. Regulatory uncertainty -- up until to a few weeks ago, no US-based team would consider buy and burn given the potential for the government to deem that a security (see the Howey Test). I would expect more teams to try now that the regulatory environment is shifting. I'm optimistic that legislation will pass

“Buy and lock” mechanics, however, can directly incentivize those who lock more tokens (while simultaneously benefiting all tokenholders like buy and burn).

This can allow an ecosystem of projects to spring up around a single token. Instead of being tied to “1 token 1 project”

collaboration /ottp +AI /luminous +creativity /arrow -> 1 story /luminary  Writing: https://paragraph.xyz/@nate collective venturing @venturetothex

Different tools for different uses and designs :) I definitely think there's opportunity to utilize both, including a Buy & Lock mechanism to support & reward participants, and potentially also utilizing strategic burns to supply. 

To me burning seems like one of those things that generates some attention but also would likely lead to more sell pressure to offset any increase in price of a reduced supply.

I wonder how a hybrid model could perhaps take advantage of the benefit of both, with a project deciding how much to turn the knob between rewards to those who stake vs burns to the full token supply