I can't say you are not, but what you illustrated in this comment isn't inherent to whether the burn policy is correct or not. It only has one common effect, which is to influence the price of BLURT.

There is a problem in the burn policy: the increase of the price obtained in this way is an artificial increase and not due to a major use of the Blurt ecosystem. The higher price will be a deterrent for those who want to join and use Blurt ecosystem (since the fees will be increased in terms of local currency).
Personally, I agree with burning a part of Blurt (or even being able to give it up) only for the active whales of the platform, in the perspective of buffer the Growth-Time Curve (the more BLURT tokens an active user owns, the more its BLURT tokens will increase compared to a user with a smaller balance).

So, it is not wrong or correct, it is a choice. In an ecosystem with still too limited use, the benefits for those inside the system are greater, because it allows them to have a higher price at which they can sell their tokens; at the same time, it is instead a greater cost (and therefore a disincentive) for those who want to approach this ecosystem.
A useful mechanism to overcome this problem would be to launch an account that acts as a "not-complete-burn account": which collects funds in the same way as a burn one, but which distributes the funds as an incentive to newcomers, paying the registration fee at the time of registration and sending small amounts of BLURT weekly, so that you can pay for transactions until you have reached sufficient power to continue independently.

If I have time, I will try to launch an experiment like this in the next few weeks. It would be useful to combine the need to increase the price of BLURT and the need to have a smaller allocation of tokens that can be sold on the market.