Regarding the market timing for token burns, there is an interesting logic: it is more cost-effective to perform burns during a price decline rather than during a price surge. The economic effects of burning at lower prices are more significant and can more effectively support long-term value. This approach is worth serious consideration for Web3 project teams.
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.
15 Likes
Reward
15
10
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
ReverseFOMOguy
· 01-10 13:56
Low-level burning is indeed more cost-effective, but the key is whether the project team dares to take action during a bear market. Most will probably wait for the right moment to come.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropDreamBreaker
· 01-10 13:48
Low-level destruction sounds good, but to be honest, will the project team really be willing to spend money during a bear market...
View OriginalReply0
FreeRider
· 01-10 03:52
Low-level buy-in destruction? Sounds like they're setting a trap for retail investors.
View OriginalReply0
MindsetExpander
· 01-08 02:09
The low-level destruction move is indeed brilliant, similar to the bottom-fishing logic, doing bigger things with the same amount of money.
View OriginalReply0
pumpamentalist
· 01-07 18:58
The logic of low-level burning is indeed brilliant, it's like picking up cheap coins to burn...
View OriginalReply0
TopBuyerForever
· 01-07 18:52
The low-level destruction logic sounds comfortable, but how many projects actually dare to do it? It sounds good, but in the end, isn't it just more cutting?
View OriginalReply0
ForkMonger
· 01-07 18:48
nah, this is just governance theater. burning at lows is exactly what they *want* you to think... meanwhile the real play is watching which devs actually have skin in the game vs who's just cosmetic-maxing their tokenomics. protocol darwinism doesn't care about your burn schedule
Reply0
ImpermanentPhilosopher
· 01-07 18:43
Low-level smashing and burning? Sounds like you're just looking for an excuse to buy the dip haha
View OriginalReply0
ForkLibertarian
· 01-07 18:35
Low-level destruction sounds good, but can it really support the price? It still seems to depend on the team's execution.
View OriginalReply0
PanicSeller69
· 01-07 18:30
I believe in the low-level burn logic; it's much smarter than burning coins at higher levels.
Regarding the market timing for token burns, there is an interesting logic: it is more cost-effective to perform burns during a price decline rather than during a price surge. The economic effects of burning at lower prices are more significant and can more effectively support long-term value. This approach is worth serious consideration for Web3 project teams.