Glmr needs a dramatic token burn mechanism

1

I’ll start with the fact that Moonbeam is a decentralized project that enjoys governance through voting, basically the community decides what is best for the project and its needs.

At this point, Glmr has already implemented a mechanism for burning tokens through fees generated from transactions that end up being burned, but this percentage represents only 0.01%, which is insignificant compared to the annual inflation of 5%, all of which is corroborated with the tokenomics that Glmr has, which is not the most successful, to be honest. I will bring up the discussion by giving the example of the major projects in the crypto world, listing Solana, Bnb, Avalanche, Aptos,Near, Eth, etc,which since 2025 have implemented a mechanism for burning their own tokens, reducing circulation supply, which helped the projects to withstand this prolonged bear market much better than Moonbeam did in 2025. Moreover, they had an enviable marketcap compared to Moonbeam and still considered this reduction in circulation supply necessary.Reducing circulating supply “today” while maintaining flexibility for “tomorrow”.It can fund ecosystem development,provide liquidity,and incentivize growth.It is imperative that this mechanism for reducing tokens in circulation supply be implemented as soon as possible, taking the example of the projects listed above, which have already been doing so since 2025, so on behalf of the community we have opened this topic and request that it be submitted to a vote through governance. The current situation in which the project is, along with a marketcap already below $15M, endangers the entire project along with the Moonbeam investors who have helped expand Moonbeam since 2022. I would like to inform you that a price below $0.01 in the near future in the context of a prolonged bear market means that Moonbeam will not be able to sustain itself at the level of the necessary monthly expenses that occur through the USDC currency obtained through the exchange of GLMR tokens.We all want Moonbeam to succeed and we expect the community’s request to be taken seriously and opened to a vote through governance as soon as possible, as most projects have been doing this since 2025.

6 Likes
2

I agree about the change in tokenomics. What figures / parameters / calculations would be proposed?

4 Likes
3

Regarding this aspect, we can all debate,.This token burning can take place gradually, quarterly.but annually 15% of the total circulating supply could be a idea, given that inflation is 5% annually, I say it is reasonable. That means a net 10% annually.

4 Likes
4

I totally agree with Raus_George ! Moonbeam should definitely do something about the Tokenomics and also add some more central exchanges to increase the liquidity

4 Likes
5

I definitly agree with Raus_George and this should be taken serious and an action should absolutly be done.

4 Likes
6

I completely agree with Raus George…we need to increase the annual burn and set a maximum supply like Polkadot did! Moonbeam Foundation, your support is needed.

3 Likes
7

Token burns don’t inherently create value, they only distribute value among GLMR holders.

When you are burning tokens in reality you are taking value from team treasury or Foundation reserves compromising future operations and development or you are taking it from blockchain revenue which is necessary for ecosystem growth and security since with that you pay collators.

Token burns on Moonbeam would compromise something either collator security, developer incentives or cross-chain liquidity competitiveness.

Ethereum and Solana did token burns AFTER their ecosystem grew, they have lots of apps, they get revenue, they can do token burns because they have already developed, this is impossible for Moonbeam.

Value comes from revenue, utility, adoption and network effects.

As you mentioned 100% of transaction fees are burnt, the change is there. Now we need to make those transactions grow, how do we do that?

The best way to do that is fostering DeFi on Moonbeam to bring utility, attracting more protocols into the ecosystem, attracting liquidity providers and fidelizing them. Liquidity providers hold more GLMR tokens which it helps in price appreciation, they help create many transaction compared to other activities. When liquidity depth and DEX diversity grow, arbitrageurs come creating more transactions.

Moonbeam should take active involvement in the creation, attraction and growth of DEXes in the ecosystem. This will bring sustained token price appreciation in the long term.

If you want the token to go to 0, go ahead, implement more burns compromising ecosystem growth, that won’t help for value to be created it will just allow you to create temporary exit liquidity.

Without users without apps the token has no reason to exist, no matter how good the token burns are. Demand must come from necessity of DeFi adoption not from speculation of token burns, this will guarantee sustainability to the ecosystem.

3 Likes
8

It seems that the foundation is only interested in datahaven

9

I partially agree with you, because the inflation has gotten out of control and it’s not good for the project. People are leaving this ecosystem precisely because of this aspect, or at least this is one of the reasons. Moreover, I consider it imperative to at least stabilize inflation, and this implies burning tokens from the circulating supply by at least 5% annually, to obtain a net 0% inflation. Although I would force the note by 10% annually for a net of -5%, which would delight current investors and make new investors interested for a promising long term. The token price is in total decline compared to other projects in the ecosystem and is losing traction every day compared to these projects or other projects with a similar marketcap. A change is needed because Moonbeam risks remaining only with Moonbeam team.

2 Likes
10

Inflation is a monetary phenomenon caused by currency emission, change in price is one of its consequences but not all changes in price are caused by inflation. What is causing the current price drop is not inflation since token emissions are 5% per year and they are fixed. it is caused by something different.

GLMR token has utility, GLMR is used for gas fees and execution fees, GLMR token is used to provide security by staking and will be used for DataHaven security. The token is used for governance. Utility of GLMR is good.

The supply dynamics of the GLMR token is that there is a 5% yearly inflation and once 1.2B is reached it will be fixed so it will decrease over time, add to that that 100% of transaction fees are burnt so the supply dynamics are geared towards a deflationary path.

If you analyze the drivers of price pressure you see the real problem.

There is a weak network activity compared to the selling pressure, transactions are not high enough to offset the selling pressure so the burn mechanism seems meaningless.

There is also shallow liquidity on the ecosystem, Stellaswap is decapitalizing, liquidity providers pulled off their liquidity from Stellaswap since it stopped distributing rewards. The blockchain is too dependant on Stellaswap it needs more DEXes. DeFi activity puts a downward pressure on GLMR price.

An increase in transactions means more fees burnt, we generated more transactions by having more DEXes and having more liquidity depth.

More burnt supply by increasing transactions and increasing demand for the token GLMR to be used on DeFi are two powerful price stabilizers. Liquidity depth acts as a price crash absorber, it takes more money to take down the price and it stabilizes it.

GLMR has good utility design, good supply dynamics the only problem are the drivers of price pressure, DeFi activity is weak on Moonbeam, MF needs to incentivize DeFi activity on Moonbeam, we need more DEXes, more lending platforms, this will help to raise volume and transactions to the point fee burns make a different. Changing anything else will be the doom of Moonbeam.

3 Likes
11

I understand your approach, and everything you want Moonbeam to implement at the Defi level, but so far the results have not been as expected, and this has been happening for 4 years. I think time is still needed, and we don’t have it in stock anymore because we are going to 0. With how the Glmr token has been performing in the last month, I think the $0.01 price is imminent. I repeat, urgent action must be taken to save the project and the token itself from death. Your expectations for Moonbeam may be possible but they are long-term, I assume you are aware of that. In addition to the mechanism itself that I proposed together with the other Moonbeam investors, I believe that a news story that brings attention to a move like this is necessary, this project has only had FUD in the last 3 years and it is understandable, it is -99.8%, so some hype is also needed. The entire crypto ecosystem as well works, using hype,especially when we refer to altcoins. Something needs to change, and giving up part of the Glmr tokens in a prolonged bear market is a solution implemented by most projects. This is not about creating exit liquidity, it is about keeping the price at least $0.03-0.04, this token was once $50.

2 Likes
12

I repeat, the burning of tokens from the circulation supply will take place gradually, quarterly so that massive price movements are avoided. Moonbeam investors are aiming for a stabilization of the price, because we see daily decreases between 5-10%. There are two token unlocks worth 8M Glmr per month, also the rewards of collators and nominators immediately reach the Usdc market. I also bring to your attention the lack of interest of collators with old states in Moonbeam who have abandoned the ship. Stellaswap does not want to collaborate, they have not responded to the Moonbeam groups for over 10 days. There are dissatisfactions and I am sure that all this is due to a marketcap that decreases daily, ultimately bringing the price of Glmr to almost $0.01. We have to get out of this area if we want to survive and the only method is the one listed. I hope that the entire community becomes aware of what we are heading towards with rapid steps :expressionless_face:

2 Likes
13

I totally agree with Raus and I demand change in the tokenomics.

3 Likes
14

There should change in the tokenomics from the GLMR devs . Thank you RAUS for bringing up this topic.

2 Likes
15

I’m not sure that CEX’s improve liquidity. Ensuring that liquidity (at scale) exists in the DEX’s is much more important and aligns better with our long term objectives.

16

Are you talking about Stellaswap?I hope not.

17

Thanks for raising your concerns — it’s good to have this discussion openly.

As mentioned above, any token burn would need to be sourced from somewhere. For example, it could come from the on-chain treasury, which currently funds infrastructure such as RPC services. It could come from Foundation reserves, which are allocated toward protocol upgrades and other ecosystem tooling. Another option would be reducing inflation, which would impact rewards for stakers and collators. Or it could be socialized across token holders (e.g., a proportional reduction).

Each of these approaches has trade-offs and downstream effects.

Could you clarify which tokens you believe should be burned and how you envision sourcing them? With that level of detail, you’re welcome to put forward a governance proposal so the community can evaluate the specifics and implications.

2 Likes
18

I mean burning tokens from the circulation supply. Never from the treasury. At a technical level, the Moonbeam team should come up with ideas, I have no technical qualifications in this field. Let’s do what the other projects have done. The community wants this and you in the team can present the best options for the entire Moonbeam ecosystem.I’m not one of those who receives a monthly salary in Moonbeam, so try to look for solutions.

1000131608
10001316081080×580 107 KB

19

Or it could be socialized across token holders (e.g., a proportional reduction

This would be an economic suicide and death sentence for Moonbeam, before the voting is over people would sell their coins in order to buy cheaper and before their GLMR tokens are reduced.

This would also motivate nominators and collators to unstake and sell and wait for the other holders to have a proportional reduction of their funds.

2 Likes
20

Their options are nonsense.I am talking about burning tokens from circulation supply.Maybe 5-10%