Burning tokens is commonplace, so I view it positively, but I don't often engage with that strategy on different platforms, especially Blurt, Steem, and Hive. My focus is to build my Blurt holdings—I want more Blurt, for me, not less of them. I won't be participating in burning Blurt. If people want a secure location where Blurt won't just be dumped—give it to me. My claim is just as valid as those who support burning tokens for possible stability and low selling pressure within the market.
Deflationary Measures
Now, in fairness, I see it as a possible way to slow inflation. The people who participate in it are sacrificing the current value of their tokens on the assumption that it may benefit the community in one way, or it could be frivolity—for fun. They are free to do so. In some ways, drastic deflationary measures may kick up enthusiasm for the coin, maybe having a positive effect on the market. Yet, I agree that cutting supply doesn't always translate to higher value. Scarcity, supply, and demand are finicky—market dynamics are complex.
Somewhat irrelevant, but some cryptocurrencies use a proof-of-burn consensus algorithm—they are incentivized to burn tokens to get more tokens as they approve blocks.
On-Chain Activism vs. the Code
The people who incentivize others to burn tokens shouldn't be inherently seen negatively. It can be the equivalent of activism from CTime or other creators who do programs that may be on the verge of breaking etiquette—people getting paid to delegate.
It's also important to remember that CTime can do this because the developers also allowed for there to be an option to burn tokens. By burning tokens and using his influence, as intended by the blockchain code, he can be creative in whatever cause he's trying to support. Declining payouts entirely is also a part of the chain.
Etiquette and Activism
As you stated in your first comments, it is positive that CTime is using its financial influence to influence the platform. I agree. It's hard to discern whether or not this specific social activism will have the intended effect of benefitting the economy, assuming that's the intended effect—I don't think this should be seen negatively.
If there are people who would like to throw their penny in the wishing well, then I wish them well. If people want to incentivize others to take some faith in uncertainty, I wish them well but hope they remain vigilant. We are all riding this uncertain crypto experiment, and so far, things are going well.
Note:
I think a better option to help the token's value is increasing demand, not decreasing supply. Smaller creators shouldn't be participating in this as it could hurt their growth than if they published their content normally—Smaller creators are taking a gamble here.
I once read someone's post here some time ago, he told his disappointment indirectly, where he mentioned that he experienced a drastic decline in asset value, he brought hive tokens for powerup to blurt for $ 4000 and I don't know the rest of the story, and that's definitely a sad story.
but in this super magnificent month of November we only light a bonfire to provide new colors, new enthusiasm or whatever is fun, we can only laugh, someone who is experiencing sadness thinks our bonfire is useless.. LMAO
Someone like CTime could 'burn' tens of millions of tokens in a moment. Far more than all other accounts have burned, put together. If they really think "less BLURT means higher prices", then why don't they do it? I suppose it's because they don't feel they should have to shoulder the burden themselves, and that everyone should do it, thus encouraging the community to burn their own tokens. But if we want everyone to equally contribute to raising the price of BLURT tokens, by decreasing the amount in circulation, why don't we just cut back a little on the rate of inflation?
Thanks for your intelligent comment. I agree that increasing demand will have a far bigger impact on BLURT's health than decreasing supply. After all, there are cryptos out there with almost zero total supply, but completely worthless because they have no use and therefore no demand. Something has to be desirable as well as limited in order to have value. We could burn this platform down until there are only a handful of tokens remaining... doesn't mean those left holding them will be millionaires.
I agree—they could easily send their coins to null if they wanted to and publicize it as taking a stand. I'll attempt to refrain from assuming—speculating on their reasons for not doing so might foster unwarranted ill will. However, you do bring up a valid point.
That could be a worthwhile solution, but that will require a soft fork and consensus between witnesses. Ignoring the concerns regarding self-sending to null, I believe that taking the initiative by utilizing the blockchain's current features is probably a fair course of action. We KNOW how defensive some people may get over code changes. If people were seriously advocating for code changes, that would translate to higher instances of drama and distrust.
Idealistically, I would prefer to increase the interest rate of Blurt to have it be closer to around 4-6% a year to be just as competitive as Hive (3% + 20% HBD) and Steem (~2.9%). Blurt's 2.2% is low, in my opinion. As US savings rates are increasing and going to compete directly against Blurt, Hive, and other staking coins with low interest/rewards, Blurt will be less competitive over time.
Now, I don't believe the devs would ever change the policies to fit my idealistic opinion; it is still reasonable to ponder.
I agree with the rest. More tokens = more accessibility—more room to use the tokens as a tipping currency or possibly to purchase goods and services in a small community.
Ohhhhh, I was under the impression the interest rate could be adjusted by anyone with access to the admin control panel. Witness consensus might be too much to ask. I've already seen Mega basically pooping on the idea, so that's not promising (although he doesn't own/influence all the witnesses).
"Blurt's 2.2% is low, in my opinion."
Maybe it's fine where it is, then. Perhaps the reason BLURT's price is low isn't an overabundance of tokens, it's a lack of demand. I've long said that demand will rise (and any tokens sitting around for cheap on exchanges will be snapped up) once the crypto bull returns. That's supposedly 2024 and 2025, if the old pattern continues. We have a token, we have a community, we have a blog platform, and we have other infrastructure. I think there's a good chance we'll do well over the next year or two.
To be clear, I will vote on people's content if I like their content, but I don't see myself declining rewards or setting my beneficiary rewards to burn.