Someone is planning to issue additional tokens, while someone else is considering burns. But I’d like to cast my vote against this proposal. As a crypto investor separate from ORBS, I’ve been closely monitoring the situations of many projects. While reviewing recent materials on IOST’s tokenomics, I found ORBS’s current OIP-10 announcement standing out in a different light. ✔️ IOST previously announced plans to issue approximately 21.3 billion additional tokens to expand its ecosystem and restructure its network incentive framework. The newly issued supply is primarily intended for node incentives, staking rewards, and ecosystem growth initiatives, as officially disclosed. Of course, IOST’s decision was likely made after careful consideration of its business strategy and long-term sustainability. But that’s not what I’m trying to argue—this isn’t about which project’s choice is right or wrong. ✔️ The key difference lies in how each project approaches securing and managing ecosystem resources. For any blockchain project to maintain and grow its network, continuous incentives are essential. You must reward node operators, encourage staking, and allocate resources to attract new partners and ecosystem participants. From this perspective, I don’t believe token issuance is inherently a wrong decision—though I do believe it should be the last resort. However, existing holders cannot ignore the potential dilution caused by an increased supply. ✔️ Yet ORBS has proposed a different approach through OIP-10: burning approximately 507 million ORBS from its long-term reserve fund. Here’s the crucial point: ✔️ The long-term reserve fund of ORBS is also intended to serve as a resource for node incentives, staking rewards, and ecosystem expansion. In other words, the purpose of the reserve being proposed for burn in ORBS overlaps significantly with the purpose of the newly issued tokens in IOST. One project is increasing supply to secure future ecosystem activity; the other is reducing an already-allocated reserve. Considering today’s market conditions, this carries profound implications. In a way, I think ORBS may be fortunate to even be having this kind of dilemma. Of course, merely having the option to burn from the reserve doesn’t alone confirm the foundation’s financial health or its long-term capacity to deliver incentives. Nevertheless, the fact that ORBS is formally considering a burn from existing reserves—rather than issuing new tokens—is, in my view, a positive development. But here, I’d like to think one step deeper. (This reflects just how high my expectations for ORBS are.) I intend to vote against this OIP-10 burn proposal. You might find that surprising. After all, long-term holders who have staked ORBS for years may welcome a reduction in supply. I’m not opposed to burning tokens in principle. But when we consider the nature of the tokens being burned and ORBS’s future direction, I believe this decision warrants greater caution. ✔️ The ability to burn tokens is not the same as the necessity to burn them now. This OIP-10 does not involve buying back tokens from the market and burning them (Buyback & Burn). Instead, it proposes permanently burning a portion of an already-secured long-term reserve. Certainly, this reduces the potential future circulating supply—which has value. But this reserve is not merely idle surplus tokens. It is a strategic resource intended for node incentives, staking rewards, and long-term growth of the ORBS network. I place particular importance on this point. ORBS is currently expanding multiple initiatives: Perpetual Hub, Liquidity Hub, Institutional offerings, and more. We must attract even more DEXs and institutional clients, onboard new ecosystem participants, and ensure long-term network stability. Along this path, there will likely be a legitimate need for appropriate incentives. Of course, having a large reserve isn’t inherently good. If a large amount of tokens remains unused for extended periods, it may be perceived by the market as potential selling pressure—and could increase uncertainty around tokenomics. Therefore, it’s necessary to rationally adjust both the size of the reserve and its intended usage plan. But before permanently burning such a substantial amount—around 500 million tokens—I believe we should conduct a more detailed analysis of the incentive requirements for future network growth and determine what constitutes an appropriate reserve level. ✔️ Is it truly optimal to reduce resources that could fuel long-term ecosystem growth right now? I’m not yet convinced. What I truly look forward to is a tokenomics model directly tied to real business revenue.During a recent lengthy conversation with CEO Ran at KBW, I realized that what I’ve always considered important ultimately comes down to this: ORBS has already developed several DeFi infrastructure products and is expanding its business through partnerships with actual DEXs. Yet from a long-term investor’s perspective, a crucial question remains: When ORBS’s business grows, how will that economic success translate into value for the ORBS token? I believe this is one of the most important challenges the DAO must address. For instance, we could envision a structure where a portion of the actual protocol revenues generated from platforms like Perpetual Hub and Liquidity Hub is allocated by the DAO according to predefined criteria—whether through buybacks, burns, staking rewards, or reinvestment into the ecosystem. Each approach has its pros and cons. What matters more than any single method is establishing a sustainable link between business growth and the token’s economic value. Given ORBS’s current protocol revenue scale, large-scale buybacks or burns may not yet be feasible. But that’s okay—we can start small. The key is to build a structure where, as the business grows and revenues increase, the economic benefits flowing back to the token grow proportionally. I believe this approach will be far more compelling as a long-term tokenomics model than a one-time reserve burn. ✔️ The fact that the DAO has begun means we must also respect differing opinions. I don’t view OIP-10 solely negatively. On the contrary, I see it positively that ORBS is now beginning serious discussions through the DAO about token supply and long-term economic structure. However, just because the foundation proposed something doesn’t mean we must endorse every proposal. Likewise, opposing a foundation proposal doesn’t mean rejecting the project’s overall direction. This, to me, is the essence of the DAO: participants with diverse interests and perspectives voice their views and collaboratively arrive at better decisions. As a Guardian, I’ve consistently supported ORBS in areas where it excels and provided honest feedback where I felt improvements were needed. I’m doing the same here. I positively acknowledge that ORBS is considering burning a portion of its reserve funds. However, I oppose this proposal because I believe those reserves represent a valuable resource for future network growth—and that a sustainable tokenomics model directly tied to real business revenues remains even more critical. This is not a principled opposition to burning. It’s an invitation to consider better alternatives. Ultimately, what I want to see is ORBS’s sustainable growth. Some projects issue additional tokens to fund ecosystem incentives; ORBS is considering burning part of its existing reserves. I hope the ORBS team can leverage this distinction to its fullest advantage—not by focusing merely on how much supply to reduce, but by asking: How much real revenue can we generate through our business? How can we reinvest those earnings into network growth? And how can we meaningfully connect those economic outcomes to the value of the ORBS token? I believe these three questions must be discussed together. Reducing reserves is a single decision. Building a sustainable business and linking its outcomes to token economics requires far more time and effort. No one can guarantee ORBS’s future success. Yet I continue to follow ORBS not merely because of hopes for burns or price increases, but because I see profound importance in a project that has built real products and expanded its business—and now, through the DAO, is rethinking its own economic structure. Having the capacity to burn is positive. But whether using that capacity for burning right now is optimal is another question entirely. That’s why I intend to vote against OIP-10. And I believe that the very process of freely debating these differing opinions may become ORBS DAO’s first meaningful achievement.