Forcing people to burn tokens, or just burning tokens for the fun of it are wrong, the right way to do token burns is to use protocol revenues, buy back the tokens from the open market and then burn them.
This is basically what comapanies do in the stock market and works the same as a dividend, it's basically a stock buyback with revenues and the end goal is to reward current shareholders.
I see a lot of people over here on hive's communities that do burns wrong, they burn tokens that are rewarded from the inflation but that didn't capture any actual revenue, that's not how this should work. Burns and token buybacks need to come from an actual product or service being sold thus generating actual REAL revenue, and then use that revenue to buyback tokens, that's how it is.
I was thinking the same about stock buybacks. It gives the illusion the corporation is doing something to raise the value of the stock. But corporations continue to sell stocks and/or give stock options after the buyback, which continues to dilute earnings. In the end, the hard-earned profits go POOF for a cosmetic fix instead of being distributed to the stockholders.
Those companies can only do those things because the shareholders allow it, if the shareholders didn't allow such thing, they could vote out the board that allows new stock to be issued or stock options, and put someone else in.
When a company is public the shareholders are the ones that decide things.
The stock options though are normally given CEOs that increase the stock's price by a lot.
Only two issues that I got are : When stock buybacks are done via loans. Getting loans to do stock buybacks should not be permitted. And with the fact that big ETFs don't allow the people that own those ETFs, and thus own the underlying individual stocks, to vote during shareholder's meetings, and instead they vote for them, like Blackrock does with their ETFs.
But public companies are also often organized in a way in which the people who started the company keep themselves in charge and can manipulate things to keep it that way. This is the standard not the exception. Meanwhile crypto has rules and printing money like that tends to be a lot more difficult in many situations, even if consensus exists to do the thing.
Yeah I didn't have time to get into it because I ended the post with "we gotta be smart about this".
So how this should be done is a topic for a whole other post.
I envision burns creating new assets like NFTs or derivative tokens.
Instead of the money going to a centralized agent the network buries it forever.
Value should never get destroyed but transferred somewhere else.
If that transfer is one way then it's a burn.
Hmmm... you could lock the tokens being burned in an NFT, but not sure what that would do.
Waiting for that new post to see where you are going with this concept...
It's more like the only way the NFT can be minted is if an asset gets burned.
Otherwise if the money gets sent to the entity that created the NFT that entity can send themselves money to create infinite NFTs. By destroying the money we can show provably on-chain that nobody can mint infinite tokens for free.
We could think of this as the burned tokens being locked inside the NFT but it would really just all be lumped into @null on a technical level.