Thank you for your interesting view and I will try check out your profile later on what you create.

As in many sense, when one post is created, more STEEM is generated (unless you literally power up and start giving back to the community with curation - at the same time you earn 50% in return).

With that in mind, inflation continues if there are no other outlets to use them _practically_, to fulfill real time needs, otherwise, it is nothing but a game of creating content and be self satisfied. 😊 

Which I believe many community builders and spearheaders do not think that way.

Otherwise Steem would have died 4 years ago.

You are very much correct on that @chireerocks . 
Hence it is time to throw the ideas around for that, even though it is kind of hard. 

Burning is just one tiny part of it, and it will not sustain long if there isn't a mass acceptance about Steem.

I agree. Burning tokens doesn't increase the value of a coin. Price of a token doesn't depend on its quantity. Bitcoin is not valuable just because it is rare. But, it is valuable because people see value in it. On the other hand price of steem is not declining because of increasing numbers of Steem and SBD. In fact, no SBD is being printed these days but, its price is also declining. The price of Steem is going down because of faulty strategies of Stinc and top witnesses who are eager to kill the goose which lays golden eggs. Too much greed is the main reason behind the fall of STeem.

IMHO there is no need to burn any crypto at all. The code was desined in such way that any entity getting the reward should USE it. The only cancer here is the need to transform that crypto into fiat. If every network participant can BUIDL something on that network that would be useful for others, then there will be no need to transform it into fiat or even burn the tokens. The total supply of one coin is not the integer number. Burning 10^4 coins from a network with scalability of 10^-8 and a total supply of 10^12 (ex) will have no action on the whole network. The best thing to do is to make sure the members of the network can USE the coin as a form of payment for many products and services.

@dses, I hope you don't mind that I will share this publication with wider audience as Im interested with other users opinion on this topic

I think burning could be helpful but I also think reducing inflation could help increase the value of the tokens without having to just waste the tokens already in circulation.

Rather than an incensitive to burn the tokens, I'd rather see an incensitive to buy & stake the token, like a page specially giving visibility to those of the same "level" of staked token than you, which would give you more chance to interact with the people who are in the same staking group as you, encouraging you to network with them & so on...
As for the burn, it may be flawed for steem itself, but it's a very good way for the steem tokens, who works on a different type of economics than steem itself.

Burning steem or sidechain tokens doesn't make any difference when there isn't much demand for them anyway. Whales control steem's price. Instead of burning, everyone should always power up and help decide token distribution. That... Or just sell.

I absolutely share your views. We need to create utility for token burning.

Hello, my friend.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "burn" means to destroy the STEEMs (?). In this way, the price of STEEM rises. Right?

But originally there wasn't a finite amount of STEEM created, like all blockchain projects? To avoid inflation? 

I have an idea, I don't know if it's crazy, but what would happen if they paid to burn the STEEMs? 

This way, the price is increased, isn't it? I guess if there is less STEEM, the price will have to go up, because of supply and demand. These are just conjectures.

Good to see you :D

Stay in touch

I see burning tokens as pathetic.
Even vesting it to new account holders would create more demand for Steem. 

We are being led by fucking morons.

If we don't take control and enforce democratically elected witnesses, being  one person 20 votes as opposed to one account 20 votes this place is crashing and it deserves to crash

>So let's ask ourselfs a question: does it change ANYTHING at all if part of newly received STEEM would be burned or powered up? Not really

This is your opinion.  Burning steem wont increase demand for it in the short term, but should demand actually increase as everyone hopes, there will be less supply to go around.  Are there other better ways to burn up the supply by creating outside demand for it first? Sure there is.  But what difference does it make to you, if I want to send 4% of my rewards to @null, or somebody else wants to create a burnpost?  This seems like a pointless argument to make because it's a voluntary exercise, and at the end of the day, it still creates less supply.  If you actually coupled that with people needing to purchase and burn steem to perform various operations such as promotion, it's even better.

Do companies buy back their own stock in order to increase the demand for it?  No, they do so in order to decrease the supply.  So that if there is demand for it in future, there is less available on the market, and you have more price appreciation.  It's a long game not a short game.

_This goes for anyone reading this post, not necessarily you OP.._

Instead of burning it, send your STEEM to me with the memo 'burn' and I will put it to great use powering it up and curating authors for c-squared and helpiecake.. I'd love more SP to both earn more reward AND to be able to reward more to others.

Burning is a way to combat inflation.. But ultimately it's those with large stake that receive the most of it... and therefore decide our fate.

Burning just seems to make the little guy be a sucker at the expense of the big whale.

Steem needs to figure out how to reward users from using and steem and being active here.

That is the core issue that is always ignored

How about buying local business vouchers (from F&B, to grocery) that are on-board with steem blockchain so that they can spend for lesser amount and at the same time the business entity would be able to stake on their account to help the community later, @crypto.piotr?

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://partiko.app/referral/littlenewthings)

Think in practical terms.

How does this work in the real world?

Consumer side inflation is a function of LIQUIDITY and DEMAND not "total dollars in existence".

Have you ever heard a government or central bank advocate BURNING MONEY?

No.

When QE1 and QE2 and QE3 were executed, trillions of new bills were printed, but inflation barely rippled, WHY IS THAT? [LINK](http://pidarasy.com/economics-finance-money/what-is-QE2-QE3-QE4-finance-money-economics.html)

Spoiler Alert! - Because the new bills were SEQUESTERED in VAULTS.

Powering-up your STEEM has almost the same effect as BURNING IT.
Powering-up your STEEM is like putting it in a VAULT.

Promoting content by burning SBD is not just burning token for nothing!
It's an advertisement system that enables outsiders to use a built-in system and promote their products.

I like my answers to be as summarized and clear as possible.
From my point of view, what makes STEEM have a market value is the fact of rewarding for the publications and the votes they produce, generating profit.
I think the best way would be for that STEEM to become STEEM POWER, Tokens and even trade on serious platforms.

Also projects like @steemmonsters do can generate wealth if that benefit is transformed into SP.

Burning can perhaps create scarcity and drive up demand and price however burning should not be an answer. I agree with @knircky, if there was a clear cut reward for active users everything would look up for steem. Investing more into what and who is already invested makes more plausible sense. Trying to burn and neglecting what is already, may be greedy and neglectful. I don’t believe burning will increase value it may increase scarcity but if the people that believe in the project no longer hold it as valuable it won't matter how much of it there is, if they all decide to abandon the project. I believe in building from within rather than trying to make things look good from the outside i.e burning coins to increase demand. How about increasing interest and thus increasing demand. Steem has to have a niche; a use, a project, a reward, something that pulls in interest and users and demand. IMO

Burning make sense if you have a certain amount of coins reserved for special tasks and you know you don't need then anymore. But these are coins that are not issued so far or at an escrow account.
To burn tokens in circulation does not change anything. Less coins - higher value, more coins - lower value, the product stays the same. You need to generate more demand. If the demand is not there an (just optical) higher price for a coin does not help.

For the most part I agree with you @crypto.piotr.   I think something like what LEO is doing, burning the rewards earned from bat browser makes sense as it takes care of that supply and does not put the leo team in a position to decided to sell, powerup or hold liquid.  It's a sure thing with the burn.

And like you mentioned in the steemworld example, that is a win-win.  I like that cus it creates demand and helps cut inflation.

This is not something new in the crypto world. However, it's usually used when the token value is high and the owners maintain stability. But I also know when tokens burned (Iconomi is the example, from last year) it had no effect on price. The price of token has fallen sharply regardless of burning.
Just my five cents, I'm not a professional in this crypto economy...