What's the deal with this "burn on deployment"? almost every deflationary token is bragging about the number of tokens they've burned before providing liquidity and isn't this useless?
For example, Alice buys the X token, then sends it to the burn address.
X price was raised because Alice bought the token, not because of her sending it to a dead address, it happened to avoid these tokens coming back to circulation.
In the same way, if there is no liquidity provided, so there is no trading happening, if Alice (X token deployer) just sends a certain amount of tokens to the dead address, this won't affect absolutely anything, because simply there is nothing to be affected apart from total supply.
So there is no difference between deploying then burning and just deploying without the amount that should have been burned.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Best Answer
I believe you're searching for logic in a place where it does not exist. Burning tokens before token "launch" is actually a shitcoin trend which makes zero sense and in general something doesn't have to make sense if everyone does it. Burning tokens which are not backed up by any kind of liquidity is useless. Shitcoins cannot offer much in the way of project functionality, development or roadmap, simply because the majority of them are made by:
So what I'm trying to say is they're basically looking for any type of announcement to make the project to look like it's alive for the investors. Also don't forget that shitcoins are copy cats, they're strictly following and copying one another - same websites with different logos, colors etc, same nonce coin burn before "launching" and the very same smart contract code. I did some research lately and from 30 shitcoins about 20-25 used the exact same smart contract just different contract names. I cannot wait for this shitcoin era to end, because too many new investors are losing money in this speculative trading of nonsense tokens.