Back to collectionA holder challenges the deflationary interpretation of token burning
NB, identified as a Sentry Key Holder, questioned what burning XAI changes if new esXAI can later be minted within a combined 2.5 billion token limit. The message was a response to the earlier buyback-and-burning discussion. It advanced a holder's interpretation that the system could remain non-deflationary; it was not a protocol amendment or a measured supply report.
NB, identified as a Sentry Key Holder, questioned what burning XAI changes if new esXAI can later be minted within a combined 2.5 billion token limit. The message was a response to the earlier buyback-and-burning discussion. It advanced a holder's interpretation that the system could remain non-deflationary; it was not a protocol amendment or a measured supply report.
That question raises a real accounting distinction: a maximum permitted supply is not the amount already minted or circulating. The message contains no balances, burn receipts or subsequent minting figures with which to measure the net effect. Its wording therefore cannot establish that the combined supply always equals the limit, or that circulating supply can never fall. A net-supply conclusion would require the issuance and destruction flows over the same interval.