#polygon Community Insights & Market Sentiment

#POL #Polygon $POL Burning about 100 million tokens does not mean I’m ready to call it a “deflationary coin.” Why not? Because a single burn can prove that one transaction was executed, but it cannot automatically answer how many tokens were newly added during the same period. What really affects long-term supply is the net amount after both flows are counted.

First, let’s get the timing straight. According to the Ethereum explorer, at 23:46 Beijing time on September 23, Polygon’s Burn Tunnel transferred 100 million POL to the dead address, and the transaction was successful. At 23:34 on September 26, Polygon co-founder Sandeep mentioned this completed transfer again in the original post, and said that another roughly 25 million tokens were being accumulated and prepared for a later burn. The Chinese briefing this afternoon was a retelling, not another 100 million-token burn; those 25 million tokens also cannot yet be counted as a second executed transaction.

What is easier to miss is the distinction between “transfer” and “net reduction.” Those 100 million tokens came from a prior burn-aggregation channel and were then sent to the Ethereum dead address. If, in your accounting, you already treat the aggregation balance as having exited circulation, and then also count the dead-address deposit as an additional 100 million burn, you will double-count. The on-chain transfer itself is beyond dispute, but to judge supply changes, you need to explain where it was before and where it is after, rather than focusing only on the destination address.

There is also the other side of issuance. Polygon’s publicly disclosed PIP-17 token mechanism includes an annual POL issuance design of about 2%, serving validator incentives and the community treasury, while retaining room for governance adjustments. Community discussions about removing issuance do not mean the rule has already changed. Directly subtracting a burn equal to about 1% of the initial 10 billion supply from an annual issuance design of about 2% is also not rigorous: the two time windows are different, and both actual minting and actual burning should be checked over the same period.

The co-founder also mentioned Polymarket perpetual products, block streaming processing, and a faster confirmation target in the original post. These are clues about adoption and the technical roadmap; they do not directly imply that fees will necessarily increase or that burns will necessarily accelerate, and they certainly do not mean that “1 millisecond confirmation” is already widely achieved. How much usage grows, and how much base fee ultimately enters the non-circulating pool, is the bridge that determines whether the token economy can keep improving.

My view is this: this on-chain transfer is worth recording, but POL’s core thesis has not been proven by a single transaction. If, over several consecutive periods of the same length, actual burns continue to exceed new issuance, and there is no double counting between the aggregation account and the dead address, I would be more willing to accept a net-deflation narrative. If, however, tokens are only transferred in batches every so often and net supply still rises, then that narrative needs to be reassessed. When you evaluate POL, do you care more about one eye-catching burn number, or about quarter-by-quarter net supply changes that can be recalculated consistently?

polygon

be positive 🤑

Polygon rises 12% after burning 100 million POL... Will it hold above $0.11?

polygon

be positive 🤑

Polygon rises 12% after burning 100 million POL... Will it hold above $0.11?

Trending Topics