Jacek.degen.eth 🎩
@jacek
GM Degens, Curious to hear your thoughts on a potential $DEGEN burn. The foundation currently holds 32.5% of the supply. While we could use it for future airdrops (like for the Degen app or other ideas), that would dilute current holders, which doesn’t feel right for those who’ve been hodling. We’ll always need some $DEGEN to keep building, but probably not 30%+. And let’s be honest, that big supply has scared off some new users worried about future inflation. One idea: a phased burn 🔥. Steadily burn tokens monthly until we reach a sustainable amount for years of building, while rewarding long-term holders. We wouldn’t burn everything, but it would shift tokenomics, and likely remove any big airdrops down the line. What do you think: burn or distribute more to the community?
89 replies
34 recasts
241 reactions
Corbin Page
@corbin.eth
Burning tokens rarely has the intended effect. Tokens are not rational markets. I’d recommend keeping it in the Treasury and lowing token allocations instead. For Burns, any fee mechanisms should be taken in ETH or stables and used to buy+burn $DEGEN. Creates buy pressure and lowers supply.
4 replies
0 recast
24 reactions
Jacek.degen.eth 🎩
@jacek
Totally agree, earning fees and using them for buybacks + burns makes way more sense. But holding 30% of the supply still feels like a red flag. Even if we never sell, it gives the impression one player could dump anytime. We probably only need 10% to fund the project long-term and that would feel way healthier to the community.
3 replies
0 recast
16 reactions
Nick Rishwain
@nickjrishwain
Corbin is right that burns don't always have the intended effect. I do think it's better than more airdrops to the airdrop farmers as that has never bought a truly aligned community. Gamifying the burn can be a much more fun community activity. Though, I'd suggest the team keep more than 10%. Hostile takeovers exist.
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
