[landryraccoon]

Just to clarify, it’s good for cryptocurrency when a portion of that finite currency is irreversibly removed from circulation forever?

In that case I assume it’s best if all ETH were to cease to exist completely. I can’t really argue against that.

[paulpauper]

There a wide spectrum between "some removed from circulation" vs "the entire thing ceasing to exist". think of this as a 400k token burn.

[Waterluvian]

As long as it’s not your eth though. In that way, I guess yes it is good if you’re holding onto a ton of Furbies and there’s a massive Furby culling elsewhere.

[landryraccoon]

For physical materials, like gold, this applies because gold is useful other than as a medium of exchange.

But ETH is a mathematical construct. It should be true in the limit up until the very last measurable quantum of ETH is erased, and the very last bit holds the entire value of the cryptocurrency.

To put it another way when does “deleting eth is good for eth” cease to be a valid argument?

[Ekaros]

When I really think about ETH and well others. I question is there really some market cap. Or is the value actually more so the coins in active circulation, with some lowering factor for big reserves. That is that market cap is in sense a lie, and amount of circulating tokens is what really indicate the value. As thus removing tokens from circulation actually would remove value. Just that calculating market cap is really hard. Unlike say redeemable stocks for say ETF.

[paulpauper]

the founder of Bitcoin literally said lost btc is a gift for everyone else. there is likely some optimal about of burning that increases value of other tokens vs. destroys the network.