Token burn or token sale—which route should developers actually take? This is a question that splits the crypto community pretty hard. On one hand, burning tokens straight up reduces supply, which can create upward pressure on price in theory. It's also cleaner from a governance angle: you're not flooding the market with fresh coins while development continues. On the flip side, selling tokens gives dev teams actual runway—cash flow to keep building, hiring, and shipping features. Burning feels noble but doesn't pay salaries. Some projects do both: burn a portion to show commitment, then strategically sell the rest to fund operations. The real play seems to depend on where a project sits—early stage? Probably need the cash. Mature with solid revenue streams? Burning might actually signal confidence. What's your take? Which model creates more real value for the ecosystem?
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.
8 Likes
Reward
8
5
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ApeShotFirst
· 7h ago
Burning is useless, you still have to sell coins to survive. In early projects, if there is no money, who the hell is going to burn for you?
View OriginalReply0
GateUser-74b10196
· 10h ago
Burning coins and selling coins is just a dead loop. How can early projects survive without burning coins? It's pure deception.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketBro
· 10h ago
To be honest, I've grown tired of the burn token rhetoric; most projects are just for the pump, right?
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainRetirementHome
· 10h ago
Burning coins is just deceiving retail investors to catch a falling knife; selling coins is the real flow of gold, don't be fooled by this trap.
View OriginalReply0
DefiOldTrickster
· 10h ago
Haha, it's the same old question again. I got tired of it back in 2016. Burning coins? Selling coins? Brother, you need to see if the project can survive the Bear Market before anything else. A project without cash flow is useless no matter how aggressively you burn coins.
My strategy is like this—early on, you do need to sell, otherwise how do you attract people? But during the mature phase, I believe in burning coins; it shows the team's sincerity and creates opportunities for shorting and Reverse Arbitrage. The key is not just to listen to their words, but to look at on-chain data. Are they really burning or is it just PPT burning?
Annual Percentage Rate is the key. No matter the model, in the end, it all comes down to how much return it can bring to coin holders.
Coins burned are truly gone, but coins that are sold will eventually flow; that’s where I can Arbitrage.
Token burn or token sale—which route should developers actually take? This is a question that splits the crypto community pretty hard. On one hand, burning tokens straight up reduces supply, which can create upward pressure on price in theory. It's also cleaner from a governance angle: you're not flooding the market with fresh coins while development continues. On the flip side, selling tokens gives dev teams actual runway—cash flow to keep building, hiring, and shipping features. Burning feels noble but doesn't pay salaries. Some projects do both: burn a portion to show commitment, then strategically sell the rest to fund operations. The real play seems to depend on where a project sits—early stage? Probably need the cash. Mature with solid revenue streams? Burning might actually signal confidence. What's your take? Which model creates more real value for the ecosystem?