#Discussion on the implementation of a burning mechanism
The community has been discussing for a long time that governance should become dynamic due to its current form, and it is clear that the community is also becoming more active, the community has recently come to some consensus: 0.3% of the $TORN in Tornadocash, which is the TORN of the Relayer deposited into the Governance staking contract, 80% of which is transferred to 0x00000 address for burning, the Governance gets 20%, the ratio is adjustable and each adjustment is decided by the DAO
Changes brought about by:
TORN will enter the deflationary economic model, as TornadoCash more and more people use, the circulation will gradually reduce, but the number of reductions will not increase sharply, there will not be much impact on liquidity
The governor will weaken rewards, which is required to pay, but also to obtain the price increase brought by the deflationary mechanism
Stake occasions are reduced, we can introduce veTORN and use veTORN for voting (my personal suggestion, not discussed by the community)
Code changes are very small, there will be no security bug, technical problems hope #AlienTornsaurusHex can actively put forward
I hope community members can widely discuss, put forward your support and opposing views and modifications, we will summarize together to come up with the final proposal
For security reasons, the final proposal will be made by #theo whether it is passed or not, he is trustworthy
I suggested this idea earlier in the discussion at the forum that Gozzy created. It’s a good idea. But Gozzy thinks that burning TORN will not increase the value of $TORN. the opposite might be the case. caused many people to leave tornado and go to other mixing platforms.
Why is burning necessary when the total issuance is far less than other coins?
The total supply of Bitcoin is 21 million, while the total supply of TORN is 10 million. The total supply is already too small, so burning them would be pointless
For example, rare gems are valuable because of their scarcity. However, too rare gems can lose value because demand decreases.
Burning does not always increase value
Currently, there is no demand for buying TORN tokens, so burning tokens will only further decrease its value. At this point, we need to find ways to increase the use of tokens and market them in various ways.
Agreed, encouraging holders to hold for the long term. The destruction mechanism can encourage token holders to hold on for the long term, knowing that over time the number of tokens they hold will decrease and the value will increase.
Binance Coin has a burn effect because it is in high demand and popularity.
Demand and popularity of TORN token are at an all-time low due to US Treasury sanctions, Binance delisting USDT, the arrest of a Dutch developer, and a governance hacking incident.
A coin with no demand or popularity will not rise in price even if it is burned, because investors are not interested in the coin itself.
Your argument is too focused on the rise in token prices and does not consider other factors such as the expansion of the token ecosystem. Although the rise in token prices is important, it is important not to overlook the fact that the expansion of the token ecosystem is essential for the rise in token prices. If the token ecosystem is expanded, the token will be used more and the value of the token will rise. Therefore, the argument that focuses only on the rise in token prices can be considered short-sighted.
what problem does burning coins solve? the problem with the price of torn is not in its quantity, but in demand. If you want to raise the price of torn, find another way, not a stupid burnout. The torn token does not have inflation compared to other projects and it is stupid to compare it with BNB, the same increase in the price of BNB is not related to burning, but to demand. My conclusion is that you are stupid, considering that the problem of the price of torn is in its quantity, it has no inflation and there is not much of it, you will only lower the price of torn by your actions, thereby lowering the security of the protocol and its economic system, think deeper, and do not follow trends (let’s come up with a token for voting and sell again its for you)
what problem does burning torn tokens solve? answer: the price problem. is the problem of price in its quantity? answer: no, the torn token does not have an inflationary model and its quantity is already small. Start a better blog and tell people about tornadocash, this will increase the demand for coins more
Currency prices have nothing to do with ecosystems. Burning 0.3% of protocol revenue does not affect the development of the project, but it will radically reduce sell-offs.
I fully respect T-hex’s opinion, of course, I also want to see what everyone thinks. I can accept both destruction and dividends.
The price problem is not the quantity, which I have explained above. But the question of price has to do with selling volume. Destroying 0.3% of the protocol income, these coins will no longer enter circulation, will reduce the amount of selling, and also make the retail investors of the exchange have deflationary expectations for Torn. This impact is slow, and only a few hundred or a few thousand may be destroyed every day, but it will have a positive effect on the currency price in the long run.
We can also wait for the team’s coins to be sold before changing to the destruction mode. I will listen to everyone’s opinions
apparently you are fixated on burning and think that this will affect the price. It is useless for you to explain the opposite
Regarding the objection, I explain: if the market value of tornadocash is at a reasonable height, the community will not propose a deflation mechanism, but the current market value is unreasonable and the price is too low, which will cause TORN to be mined quickly, which is not conducive to the entire project The initial planning will lead to the demise of the project. Only when the market value returns to a reasonable range and the mining speed is reduced, will it be beneficial to the progress of the project
torn 10 million, and it will not be more, it does not depend on the speed of production. Do you understand that? that new coins are not minted
increase the price by burning? in the case of torn, this will not help, in the opposite direction, to the bottom, good luck to you
it’s useless to argue with you, you can’t hear, you’re stupid. sorry, emotions
tell me why to the bottom
3 people explained it to you, but you don’t see it. I’m sorry, but I have a feeling that I’m having a dialogue with a teenager
Do you think your speech is on point? Give me a reason, if it is reasonable I accept, I can also refute you, this is a discussion not a decision, the proposal is decided by the DAO, not you or me, I think I am talking to an old man
I understand what you mean, but could you please provide your suggestions for improvement, such as how to increase the demand?
Give your opinion, not just a rebuttal
this does not solve the problems of torn, but breaks the economic model of the token. If you are driven only by the price, and it is, apparently you bought expensive. This does not solve the problem either of price or technologically, it just breaks the ingenious economic model of the token