The burning is actually a great idea as it will indeed make $VOLT more deflationary.
But how about we do this instead?
We can introduce a Vesting Mechanism: Consider implementing a vesting mechanism for the tokens distributed to stakers. Instead of distributing all the tokens immediately, a portion could be vested over time, incentivizing stakers to remain engaged with the protocol for an extended period. This approach helps maintain a long-term commitment from stakers and reduces the risk of a massive selloff, dump or sell pressure once staked tokens have completed their terms.
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.
For the long-term viability of the Voltage Finance launchpad on the DEX, I believe the concept of reducing the token supply and distributing the remaining tokens to community projects is a good one.
I would like to suggest that we take into account how the burning proposal would affect the current owners of VF launchpad tokens. While reducing the supply might increase the value of the tokens still in circulation, it might also have a detrimental effect on the Voltage Finance launchpad’s market dynamics and liquidity. More details on the burning proposal’s implementation and the steps being taken to minimize any possible negative effects on token holders who have already purchased tokens would be helpful.
Overall, as a whole I agree. I disagree when one says burning volt can affect the liquidity. It is true if the $VOLT burned is in the current LP’s, but if it is reserves being burned then it is all the better and will indeed make it more scarce, but it won’t harm the liquidity.
I believe this is a you have a good idea of the allocation of places to burn it. One could alternatively suggest that since some of the $VOLT funds are being burned that went toward potentially further funding/running the project, perhaps some of fuses $10m ignite funding program could be used to go toward some of this. Just an idea.
A gradual burn over 10 weeks sounds very good. I would make this process as transparent as possible to the community. I would recommend this to be released and start when the market conditions are most optimal, for a good response from the crypto community. Thanks again Tomas, and I appreciate anyone who considers my thoughts here.
The most effective way to burn tokens is by permanently removing them from circulation, reducing the total supply. Which is happening in the proposal, however, the most important thing is that the token burning is being conducted transparently, and for me I think its easier to make the right choice based on feedback. Thanks.