In the world of Web3, communities hold the power to reshape the digital economy. Recently, a topic has gained attention: what would happen if the community votes to destroy 50% of the native tokens?

This is not just a technical operation. From an economic perspective, it’s akin to a "token burn ceremony"—by creating scarcity, it could theoretically drive up the token price, much like a phoenix rebirth. But reality is often more complex.

On one hand, halving the token supply can indeed improve scarcity expectations. Token holders might favor this move, believing that tightening supply will support the price. Community participation also reflects the project's true governance capability, which is a positive factor.

On the other hand, the act of burning itself does not create real value. If the project's fundamentals haven't changed and the tokenomics haven't been optimized, simple burning could trigger speculative trading and lead to volatility. Even worse, if liquidity deteriorates after the burn, it could cause a price crash.

The key question is: what is being burned? Liquidity tokens or long-term locked tokens? Is there a comprehensive economic rationale behind the community’s decision? These details determine whether the outcome creates value or introduces risk. In Web3 community governance, every decision is a gamble.