Looking for factual info and not speculation to help with some maths

Autonomi Network Token (incl (e)MAID)
1

*NOTE: I will likely delete any posts not helping with information.

Can anyone give practical examples of what scarcity does to the value of a coin/token. Meme/scam coins do not qualify for obvious reasons so please do not use them as an example.

Not theory but where a coin/token has a reducing total-supply over time and it is the primary cause of price change. Also I am after where the reduction is not huge %ages like 60%-99% and would be nice if there are any example in existence of reduction over time of 20%-60%.

In my experience it seems scarcity is not a great indicator of price rise or drop. Usually many other factors are the cause of the price rise/drop. For instance using BTC we see an increase in supply yet price rises due to other reasons

The reason I am looking for this is to make sure I do not miss things when working on effects of scarcity and the ability for turnover of utility token used to pay for upload. I expect that while there is enough circulating token that there will be little effect on uploading, but price may see some, although I don’t think it will till the circulating supply cannot support desired upload rate. Although required token to upload one record will affect price

Remember speculation and general discussion is off topic here, take it elsewhere as this is a request for factual examples.

3 Likes
2

I don’t think mods should be able to moderate their own topics. Or if they are, I’d like to have this privilege over topics I create.

DELETE ME! :rofl:

6 Likes
3

If you create a topic and specifically want it kept on topic then you can flag off topic posts. Others have done this in the past :wink:

Guess I have to leave these two posts so that I do not get the do not censor me style of posts.

3 Likes
4

I can flag posts all over but that’s a different level of privilege isn’t it? I think it’s a poor look for a mod to be saying what you did in the OP. Deleting v flagging for others to adjudicate, don’t you think?

I’ve had my flags or requests ignored by mods in the past.

5

  • 50% of all SOL transaction fees are burned

  • 10% of all BSC transaction BNB is burned

  • 0.00001 XRP is burned per transaction

  • 70-80% of ETH transaction fees are burned.

  • XLM burned 50% of its supply in 2019 (at 1 time). In October 2019 it was trading at about $0.07, and right after the burn in December 2019 it was trading at $0.09 with it reaching $0.10-.12 in mid 2020. Today it is trading at $0.50

3 Likes
6

So only one example with figures and it showed minor change with an immediate 50%. The rest can be due to other factors. Even the change right after the huge burn could just be hype and speculation.

Burning fees is so minor to a financial coin. ETH as been said is a very bad example since the total-supply is said to be unlimited. But still is just the fees. Not the whole transaction.

7

Maybe it is, I will just delete this topic after today then so the bad look is not there. Yea I know that doesn’t solve the issue does it :wink:

8

BNB is a good example: BNB price today, BNB to USD live price, marketcap and chart | CoinMarketCap

It’s a utility token for the Binance ecosystem, which has a regular burn mechanism to reduce the supply over time with the goal of supporting the price.

It’s similar to Autonomi’s concept in that a percentage of transaction fees are burned.

It has a max supply reduction of 50%, so the original 200,000 supply will burn down to 100,000, and stop there, unless there are further changes to the tokenomics. If a burn mechanism is kept for Autonomi, a cap on the amount of supply reduction possible may be a good idea.

The only examples of supply change being an obvious primary cause of price change I can think of are dilutions (e.g. currency hyperinflation, stock-splits), not supply reductions.

BNB has done great, but it’s impossible to be sure about the effect burns have had without access to a near identical parallel universe where the BNB supply remained at 200m vs the current 139m.

I think it’s fair to say that if the value of the BNB ecosystem remained the same, but every wallet’s BNB balance was doubled, the $ value of each token would pretty much be cut in half.

By the same rationale, it’s also fair to say that if the supply of BNB today were 200m rather than 139m, the price per token would likely be around 69.5% of the current price.

There’s an unknown about how the expected future supply reduction affects current holding / investing decisions on aggregate, and it’s impossible to know this. If the supply hits 100m, analysis will be possible to assess whether the lack of a burn has an obvious impact on long-term holder behaviour or price action.

1 Like
9

Just don’t moderate your own topic :smiley:

1 Like
10

No, it is not similar at all. Autonomi is not burning a %age fees, but a %age of the WHOLE transaction.

Again not similar since Autonomi has no stopping point

Also the timeframe is so long that hype and speculation has a greater effect. Take BTC doing the opposite to burn, but increasing yet its price increases too. So long term that has hype, speculation, and other effects happening is unfortunately not a good example.

I do feel it will be hard to find good examples. The XLM example is the closest and it saw in crypto terms a modest increase that also can be just expectation and hype. Just unable to distinguish

3 Likes
11

It’s similar in that it burns tokens when an activity happens on the network, and it has the effect of reducing total token supply.

Similar doesn’t mean identical. BNB is a successful utility token where burning has played a significant role in its story.

If network value increases at a faster rate than token supply, of course the price can still go up.

Total network value / number of tokens = token price.

If you reduce the number of tokens while keeping the network value the same, token price will be higher, and vice versa. It’s just division.

1 Like
12

It most certainly different. Fees are tiny fraction of the transaction. For autonomi it is the whole. So a %age of fees might take 200 years if fees are really high at like 2 to 5% of transaction to have close to the effect of 3 to 5 years years on Autonomi where its 100% of transaction being skimmed off at 2%

So no, I really do disagree on mathematical grounds.

We are told over and over that its the data that gives the network value and cause the price to rise. The burn is non-existent until the 120 million reserve is built and 6 months in, if we look at the daily uploads and price of record store (in tokens) then it would be centuries before the 10% (120 million) reserve is built.

As to when the price in tokens for record store rises above millionths of a token is anyones guess, but lets just say in the next 6 months as the network grows there is no indication that it will be even out of the micro-token range to store. The network capacity at this time is so high that uploads do not even have every node storing one responsible record (yes some a few) and until native this is unlikely to significantly improve.

Also I cannot see that the reserve fee is even being applied yet. How long before that is applied? End of 1st year, or 2 years or …

Ball park guessing is that it’ll be more like 5 years before there is a significant amount going into the reserve. Thus the burn may take 10 years before kicking in on a regular basis. By then the effect will be ever so much smaller on market price than a 50% reduction did on others.

I keep hearing this is so simple that the huge reductions in total-supply will improve the price. Well if we are to reach the time when burn kicks in then the price will have to have increased the value due to the rhetoric of network value is in the data. Then one has to question if burn is even necessary since for the next few years after kicking in it will have an effect in the market

Remember that the total-supply is not the important figure for the economy of this utility token, it is the ability to obtain token to upload and the price to store is not too high. The available-token is the important figure along with price to store. And available-token will be there until burn has reduced total-supply below available-token. The required available-token for healthy uploading is a rising figure and burn is reducing the total-supply and as they approach each other then the uploading will begin to be affected and as the network slows down the price rises to the rising unavailability of token and people of course become reluctant to upload which has a chilling effect. [Yes bag holders will sell some which increase available-token some, but again this only pushes back the issue]

That is one reason beyond what is being burned (%age of fee Vs %age of whole transaction) why those examples are not similar, different maths being used on different variables and how total-supply is not the important figure for the health of the network.

Now if burn was done differently and not on whole of transaction then it would end up similar to those other projects

1 Like
13

The picture so far is that while some projects have seen some increases due to large reductions in total-supply, there is no clear picture of cause-effect. Maybe some effect but the news has a much bigger effect in most cases.

I have to be careful here since that aligns with what I was thinking anyhow.

If I ever do some modelling needing this as part of it then I think by adding in a increase factor to account for reduction in supply, hype, usage, etc will be all that is needed. The reduction in supply is minor at best and certainly not a guarantee to increase value.

1 Like
14

PulseX might be worth looking at because it has a fixed supply like ANT and is only burned when used, i.e. similar to uploading as it will be with Autonomi. So that you don’t get confused, PLS also has burn (it’s a copy of Ethereum), look at PLSX - it’s a copy of UniSwap with burn activated during trading.

1. DeFiLlama – PulseX Protocol Metrics

  • Shows how much of PulseX trading fees are used for buybacks and burns:

    • PulseX V1: 0.25% of each fee (~86% of all fees) goes to buy & burn PLSX.

    • PulseX V2: 0.06% (~20% of fees).

    • StableSwap: 0.017% (~43% of fees).
      Visit

You can track annual, monthly, and daily data on fees, volumes, revenues, and other key PulseX indicators here.

2. PulseCoinList – PulseChain Stats & Analytics

  • Provides live data for PulseChain, including PLSX:

    • The Burn Metrics section displays information on token burns and circulating supply changes.
      Visit

3. PulseChain Forum / Community Discussions

  • Example post from November 2023:

    “…PulseX has done ~$3.185B in total volume which has burned 567B PLSX, equal to about 2.75% of user-owned supply…”
    Visit

This provides context on how burns relate to the total token supply.

4. Additional Resources

  • GeckoTerminal – Tracks various PLSX-related pools (Burn/WPLS, Burn/pTGC, Burn/MIKE, etc.). These are pool-specific rather than overall PulseX burn metrics.
    Visit

  • HowToPulse / PLSBurn – PulseChain monitoring site with a dedicated burn section:

    • Shows total burned tokens, burn per block, and real-time updates.
      Visit

Comparison Table

Resource What It Shows
DeFiLlama % of fees used for buy & burn; revenue, volume stats
PulseCoinList Burn Metrics – burned tokens & circulating supply
PulseChain Forum Historical burned PLSX data vs. total supply
HowToPulse / PLSBurn Real-time burn numbers & block-level burn dynamics
GeckoTerminal (Burn pools) Specific burn token pools, not global burn policy

Check out the Impossible Futures!

1 Like
15

What level is the fees. 100% of transaction amount? 1%? 0.01%?

This is very important to know.

How long did it take to burn 2.75% of user owned?

1 Like
16

0.29% fee

This particular post from the Pulse forum is actually old. From 2 years ago. Exactly how much is owned by the community is speculation. Look at the total supply - 1.1% of all tokens have been burned in 2 years, for a volume of 24 billion trades from May 23, 2023 to today:

Check out the Impossible Futures!

1 Like
17

Thanks. Compared to PulseX V1, Autonomi is proposing burning 2758 times per upload payment.

  • 0.25% of 0.29% == 0.0025 * 0.0029 == 0.00000725
  • 2% = 0.02
  • Autonomi burn factor / PulseX V1 burn factor == 0.02 / 0.00000725 == 2758 times

2 years to get to 1.1% giving over 150 years if same number of token burned each year. More than 1000 years if same percentage of reducing total-supply

Autonomi once global and used by target audience of the global population will see billions of tokens used per year. They keep cycling around uploader to node operator back to uploader. And 2% of that is on the order of 20 million (1B spent) to 200 million (10 B spent) tokens per year. So compared to original total supply of 1200 million token then its 1.6% to 16% of original total-supply of 1.2B burned per year.

1 Like
18

Let me note again that in your speculations you are based on the hypothesis that things are chosen now and remain unchanged forever.

In crypto, however, things are the result of social consensus, because people choose what software to run on their computers.

In the example with PulseX, a technical error was made in version 1 and it burned 86% of all fees, which is why version 2 was released (no matter how much some people hate Richard, he has proven that he believes in decentralization and his things do not have a private key with which to change, so change only comes with public consensus). Version 1 continues to exist and be used, of course, but version 2, in which the mass of people moved their liquidity, is used far more.

A similar action in Autonomi would be to release a version of the smart contract without a private key for the Autonomi Foundation and without burning if it is proven that burning is harmful.

Check out the Impossible Futures!

19

Of course, once you say lets just change things then you have not analysed a design. Imagine an engineer analysing a building design, and then just told well it can change, as if any fault found now is immaterial and just build the building.

No, to analyse a design you have to analyse the actual design, not what it could be.

20

Fact, but social things are not subject to such analysis, because of the huge number of unknowns. This is not a house, it’s people with feelings, desires and goals. Your analysis assumes only 1 network, while the most likely option is many competing networks and then the burn is a competitive advantage.

Check out the Impossible Futures!