Thread by @hasufl

I keep hearing this but BNB‘s buy-and-burn mechanism is functionally the same as LEO‘s.

Binance also buys the tokens it burns, it‘s only less obvious because the buy happens at the same time as the provision of trading and other services.

See example: (cont)

https://twitter.com/lawmaster/status/1298121190100303872

LEO:
Trader pays $10 in fees
Bitfinex sells $10 to buy $10 LEO
Bitfinex burns the $10 LEO
Result: Bitfinex +/- 0, trader -$10, LEO holders +$10

BNB:
Trader pays $10 BNB in fees
Binance burns the $10 BNB
Result: Binance +/- 0, trader -$10, BNB holders +$10

QED

Some people are correctly pointing out that not every trading fee is paid in BNB, and so it has to burn more than it receives from traders. These BNB are taken from their treasury.

The overall point still holds, because BNB has no obligation whatsoever to even hold BNB.

These coins in the treasury have to be counted toward the overall supply. Every day Binance does not sell their BNB is functionally equivalent to them buying the BNB.

Example: (cont)

1) Binance holds BNB in treasury
Trader pays $10 fee
Binance takes $10 from treasury
Binance burns $10 BNB

2) Binance sells $10 BNB for $10
Trader pays $10 fee
Binance sells $10 to buy $10 BNB
Binance burns $10 BNB

In both cases, Binance +/-0, trader -$10, and BNB holders +$10

In spite of this, there is a difference between BNB and LEO:

Let's say both have minted 1000 tokens

Binance has sold 500 of them and kept 500,
while Bitfinex has sold all 1000 of them.

This leads to different market outcomes, but it doesn't change the burn mechanism itself

What Binance did here is equivalent to selling 1000 and then using the proceeds to immediately buy back half.

So the benefit to BNB holders was front-loaded because Binance *already* bought this supply from them, while Bitfinex only buys LEO when it's actually needed to burn.