Burning Volt tokens from the reserves

Dear Voltage DAO community members,

We propose a token burn to reduce the total supply of VOLT and create a more sustainable ecosystem. It. isnt hard to understand why inflationary supply or also big team funds can be harmful for the DAO. Burning tokens can decrease the total supply of VOLT, which can lead to scarcity. However, implementing a fee-burning mechanism can result in migration of contracts, which can be costly and result in the loss of liquidity. Instead, we propose manually burning a percentage of the total supply.

The proposed token burn will consist of 10% of the total supply, which amounts to 700M tokens from the team and advisor fund (50% of it) and 300M from the dev fund. This action will decrease the supply and make VOLT more scarce. Additionally, it will reduce the potential for inflation and ensure that VOLT remains a valuable asset in the long run.

We propose to execute this token burn over a period of 10 weeks, starting on May 1st and ending on July 10th. This gradual token burn will provide an opportunity for community members to adapt to the changes and ensure a smooth transition for the ecosystem.

We recommend executing this token burn by the 1st of May. This will provide sufficient time for community members to review and provide feedback on this proposal.
We believe this token burn will have a positive impact on the Voltage DAO ecosystem and the value of the VOLT token. Low token prices are a threat to governance and decentralization, also can end up in a death spiral.

Please share your feedback and thoughts on this proposal in the comments section.
We look forward to hearing from you.


Can you give us a breakdown of how much volt is in non-team wallets and LPs, and how much remains in all the team managed wallets. Also the prediction of how much volt will be given out in farming rewards over the next 3 years.

This will give the community a sense of where the volt is held (community or team), dependencies (farming, dao governance etc) so that we can understand if the 10% is a significant amount overall, and how it will impact the areas it is being taken from.

I.e. to answer the question why 10% and not 50%.

1 Like

Just to add, I’m in favour of reducing the volt supply as it appears to both remain mainly in the teams control, and also given out as farming rewards in excessive amounts.

1 Like

I guess because 50% “would not be socially acceptable” as they nowadays.

1 Like

i like the idea of diminishing the volt supply a bit, even though in general i dislike the idea of burning.
i like @fuseprime am interesting in hear about the specifics of amounts of volt

  • team wallet breakdowns
  • circulating supply
  • yearly emissions
  • total supply
    would the tokens being burnt not serve us better with a CEX listing somewhere?
    or even used to make volt bridgeable?
1 Like

The team currently holds 677,115,384.62 Volt tokens which are allocated to the following safes: Partnerships and liquidity, team and advisors, airdrop and dev fund. As we continue to mint new tokens, 2,400,865,385 Volt tokens will be distributed for farming rewards until the whole supply is minted.

However, I propose to lower the reward distribution by 50%, which would mean that only 1.2B tokens are distributed instead. To achieve this, we can take two steps:

Firstly, we plan to burn 300M tokens by the end of April. After that, we can continue burning 20M tokens per week over 35 weeks to reach the 1B token mark.

Secondly, we can burn 50% of the minted tokens per block by sending them straight from the Masterchef (the contract that mints Volt tokens) to the burn address.


thanks for getting back @Tomas_Voltage ,
this clarifies things a bit, i like the idea of a continuous and automatic burn.
cutting the supply down by 50% .

  • IMO it would be more prudent to reduce the burn amount of the team wallets, by 25% instead of the planned 50%
  • the 50% emissions rate drop, will more than take care of future circulating supply, leaving the team wallets mostly intact for future uses of volt, (cex listing, partnerships,)

i have a question. what will this do for token stats like fully diluted market value?
would is be essential cut in half as well? (by the end of emissions)
would it be better to lock these tokens away for say 100 years? 1000 years?
not as impressive as burning i know. just something to concider

1 Like

From: Tokenomics - VOLTAGE FINANCE

Public 4.75% (475m)
Private 20% (2000m)

	Total = 24.75% = 2475m 

Fuse Foundation: 2.8% (280m)

	Total = 2.8% = 280m

Voltage Team:
Partnerships and Liquidity 15% (1500m)
Dev Fund 10.2% (1020m)
Air Drop 2.5% (250m)
Team and Advisors 14% (1400m)

	Total = 41.7% = 4170m

Community Incentives (farming) & Bridge: 30.75% (3075m)

	Total = 30.75 = 3075m

Total Supply = 10,000m (10 billion)
Current Supply = 7606m
Volt to mint = 2394m (solely used for farming rewards via Community Incentives allocation)

I believe the proposal is to:

  1. Burn 50% of Team and Advisors = 700m
  2. Burn 29.4% of Dev Fund = 300m
  3. Burn 50% of remaining Volt to Mint (farming rewards) = 1200m

A total burn of 2200m = 22% of the supply. The total supply becomes 7800m Volt (7.8 billion)

This will change the % owned such that:

Sales = 31.73% (+6.98% = 28.2% increase)
Fuse Foundation = 3.59% (+0.79% = 28.2% increase)
Voltage Team = 40.64% (-1.06% = 2.54% decrease)
Community Incentives = 24.04% (-6.71% = 21.1% decrease)

To date, 681m Volt have been given out as Farming rewards. A burn of 1200m would still leave a further 1200m to be given out.



Thanks you for the response.

I think this is a great idea, i will create a poll, if the community approves we will post it on snapshot!

  • Yes, I support this proposal!
  • No, lets change the amounts

0 voters

  1. I do not see the relationship of this proposal with creating “a more sustainable ecosystem”, because if there is burning, but there is no repurchase, the price will not change, only the place tokens will change
  2. $Volt does not have an inflationary supply, because you already know how many units it will have at most (10,000,000,000), an inflationary token is $fuse or Ethereum for example, which have unlimited issuance and do not have a maximum supply. The $volt is being inflationary because there is more selling pressure than buying, because it is offered as a reward in Farming and it does not have deflationary mechanisms such as “burning fees” or some other added value, such as the possibility of depositing $volt in some another DEX to earn rewards, or be able to provide $volt as collateral on a loan.
  3. The positive of a great token offer is the user’s false feeling that they are buying many units, not as in the case of other tokens such as BTC, BNB or ETH, that we can only buy fractions.
  4. If you consider that implementing a fee burning mechanism could be costly and lead to loss of liquidity, you may consider using a fork of another contract, like you did with $fUSD. For example, Polycat (from Polygon Blockchain) is using a fee burner Masterchef Contract on its DEX very similar to the one proposed in VIP-4. Polycat is a small project with little traction, almost no marketing and no attention in its support group, its development has stopped or is on pause, I don’t know, but that contract was audited and it has been working correctly for more than two years, burning fees .
  5. I agree with @SupportiveWolf about the tokens will serve us better with a CEX listing or used to make $volt bridgeable.
  6. An idea:
    Create a locked staking of $Volt at 90, 180 and 360 days, whoever deposits will be given 5, 10 and 15% respectively (or the % that you want)

In short, I DISLIKE THE IDEA OF BURNING, don’t see the positive in this proposal for the present and future of $Volt or Voltage Finance.
2200M $volt at the current price is $1,167,628
I prefer to use part of those tokens as the full or partial payment to the developers for the Masterchef migration. The same with some more or less recognized CEX.

1 Like

I think the point of the burn is because the team already have sufficient tokens to achieve all they need to do, and the current excessive team wallets and volt rewards are doing nothing to create a positive tokenomic model.

I agree burns may not have an immediate effect, but in the medium term as new investors come in, the lower total supply will help the token achieve a greater value that it could at 10b.

1 Like

We agree that no measure is being taken to generate value for $volt to reduce the selling pressure, I explained that in the previous comment.
Regarding “new investors”, it is more of the same, without development in the project, there will be no “new investors”, Voltage needs to launch the Launchpad to put $volt to use and add more projects to the blockchain and take advantage of its privileged position in the FUSE network, and by increasing the Tx Vol and applying the VIP-4 with the burning of fees, there… just there… we can talk about “new investors”.
Projects with billions and trillions of units reached a very large liquidity, even though many of them were Meme Tokens, because as I said, people prefer to have 20M Pepe Tokens, rather than 0.0002456 Satoshi.
Also, I think the Voltage team knows what I mean, and that they made the decision that $volt has a max supply of 10,000,000,000 for that reason, otherwise, they would have chosen a smaller number and paid fractions as a reward, in the practicality is the same.

1 Like

Hi everyone.

Great to see discussions taking place.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the token burn and the future of $VOLT. We appreciate your insights and believe that the upcoming launch of the Launchpad, coupled with veVOLT, will create a supercharging utility for $VOLT. As you know, both are scheduled on our roadmap for this quarter, so it’s not far from becoming a reality.

I agree with Pablo’s observation that people enjoy holding larger quantities of tokens. The proposed token burn will not significantly impact this aspect, as the remaining token supply will still allow for a sense of holding substantial amounts.

I believe that this proposal coupled with our next releases will create a flywheel effect. With a reduced token supply, the increased utility brought by veVOLT and the Launchpad will likely lead to a price increase, attracting more users to Voltage, the VOLT App, and the Fuse ecosystem.

Furthermore, the introduction of a weekly burn mechanism presents us with an excellent opportunity to generate marketing content on a regular basis. This will help maintain engagement with our community and attract new members.

Once again, thank you for your input. Everyone here is committed to supporting the FUSE ecosystem and we appreciate your support.


I think that burning fees from Dex transaction is the best option BTW the only issue is that, you cant do it with out migrating all the Liquidity in the Dex.

I dont say we are not going to do it but there should be a big majority of the community voting for it or proposing it!


this poses a problem in my opinion…
having been 'left-behind ’ from the last dex upgrade after burning the liquidity for FSB token.
i have heard talk of a new router for the volt dex, will this also involve the migration of funds?
burning liquidity is the choice of the individual projects that choose to do so,
these decisions should not inhibit the improvement of the voltage products.
i am merely bringing up a point to consider.

1 Burning tokens lowers the overall supply, which, if demand stays the same or rises, may result in an increase in the value of the tokens that are still in circulation.

2 Token burning is a tool that may be used to control token output and keep an ecosystem in balance. It might be in line with the long-term objectives and broader tokenomics approach of voltage finance.

3 Investors may see the burning of tokens favorably since it shows a commitment to lowering inflationary pressures and maybe raising scarcity.

To minimize unintended outcomes or detrimental effects on the voltage finance ecosystem, token burning should be implemented carefully and openly.
It’s crucial to understand that boosting a cryptocurrency’s value through token burning is not a foolproof or universal approach. Its effect is influenced by a number of variables, including fundamentals of voltage finance, market conditions, and investor attitude.

I like the team suggestions on reducing $VOLT token supply via burning because it will definitely create a more sustainable ecosystem.

The general notion behind burning is that it can decrease the total supply of a token, which can lead to scarcity so when this is done to $VOLT token, the price of $VOLT token will definitely rise.

I agree with the fact that the Voltage Finance team intends to manually burn a percentage of the total supply of $VOLT token which is advisable and better when compared to fee-burning mechanism which usually results to loss of liquidity.

The gradual token burn set to be utilized by the Voltage Finance team will to a large extent give community members a chance to adjust to the changes and guarantee an easy transition for the ecosystem.

I think the idea of reducing the token supply and allocating the remaining tokens to community initiatives is a positive move for the long-term sustainability of the Voltage Finance launchpad on the DEX.

I would like to suggest that we consider the potential impact of the burning proposal on the existing holders of the VF launchpad tokens. While reducing the supply may increase the value of the remaining tokens, it may also result in a negative impact on the market dynamics and liquidity of the Voltage Finance launchpad. It would be helpful to have more information on how the burning proposal will be implemented and what measures will be taken to mitigate any potential negative impacts on existing token holders.

I think it would also be good to take a percentage of the swap fees for a daily or weekly manual purchase and perform a monthly burn, I think it would also have a good impact, adding the percentage burn that you propose of the equipment.

Regarding the proposal to burn a portion of the Voltage Finance launchpad tokens and allocate the remaining tokens to community initiatives, I think it’s a wise move to increase the value of the tokens and incentivize community members to participate in the development and growth of the launchpad.

I would like to suggest that the community rewards program should be designed in a way that encourages active participation and contribution, rather than just holding tokens. For example, rewards could be given to community members who create content, provide feedback, or refer new users to the launchpad.