Zhiyi Lunbi for Beginners Avoid Pitfalls Course 21: Why Buyback and Burn Is More Important Than Ordinary Partnerships?

Zhiyi Lunbi for Beginners Avoid Pitfalls Course 21｜22:12
Why is buyback and burn more important than ordinary partnerships?
When they see a project announce that it has “reached a partnership,” many new users automatically think: since a big institution recognizes it, the token price should go up. But the most common situation in the market is that the announcement is lively, while the token itself receives little practical benefit.
Partnerships are like a door that might open. Whether it brings new users, real revenue, and ongoing usage can only be known after it’s implemented. Even if the partnership is truly carried out, and the revenue goes to the company, foundation, or ecosystem participants, it doesn’t mean those values naturally flow back to token holders.
The reason buyback and burn deserves more attention is that it answers two more specific questions: Has the project put up real funds to buy back the tokens? And after the buyback, have the tokens really exited circulation? Compared with a single statement like “there will be a future partnership,” this value transfer path is shorter and easier to verify.
But the four words “buyback and burn” also can’t be taken directly as a reason to buy.
First, I’ll look at where the buyback money comes from. If the funds come from the project’s real revenue, it suggests there may be a connection between business performance and the token. If they’re just selling more tokens and using only a small portion of that money to buy back, the surface effect is reducing supply, but in reality they might be burning and issuing more at the same time.
Next, I’ll check whether the burn actually happens. Announcing a plan, transferring the tokens into project-controlled wallets, and locking them for a period of time don’t equal permanent burning. A more reliable approach is to verify on-chain transactions, the burn addresses, the execution frequency, and whether the team can later take these tokens back out.
Finally, you also need to compare the scale. Burning one million tokens sounds like a lot, but if at the same time another ten million tokens are released, the circulating pressure hasn’t actually decreased. What really matters is comparing which is larger: the burn amount or the issued amount, whether the buybacks can be sustained, and whether the project’s revenue can cover this expenditure.
So buyback and burn is usually more important than ordinary partnerships—not because it necessarily boosts the price, but because it’s closer to the core question: does the value created by the project return to the token? The path is more direct, but it doesn’t guarantee the result. If the scale is too small and they stop after just one execution, or there isn’t real revenue support, it may just be publicity.
Zhiyi Lunbi verifies major news by separating “what was announced” from “what was actually done.” In-depth research continues to determine whether revenue, supply, and token value can form a closed loop. That way, when there’s a positive catalyst, your attention won’t only stop at the headline.
If you’re looking at a specific project’s buyback or burn plan, leave the token name, and also what you’re most unsure about: the source of the funds, the execution record, or the burn scale. We can sort out this value path together.