Notice: Polkadot has migrated to AssetHub. Balances, data, referenda, and other on-chain activity has moved to AssetHub.Learn more
Urgently Halt DOT Treasury Burn
If approved, we kindly request fellowship to URGENTLY reduce 24-day treasury burns from 1% to 0%
Critical Risk:
Hard Pressure issuance caps DOT supply at 2.1B DOT & reduces treasury income.
Currently at 18M/year (15% of issuance)
→ 8.32M DOT/year (Mar 2026)
→ 6.15M DOT/year (Mar 2028)
→ 4.53M DOT/year (Mar 2030)
The Burn destroys scarce funds useful to OpenGov, economic stimulus, or network security.
Halting it preserves these assets.
Burn Facts:
- 1% of treasury burned every 24 days
- 108,162 DOT burned Oct 24, 2025
- 1.66M DOT burned in 2024
- 20.12M DOT burned since 2020
Purpose of The Burn:
Legend has it The Burn was intended to motivate DOT holders to put the treasury to work before it vanished.
This vestige of Gov1 design, however, may no longer serve DOT holder interests under a capped & and declining issuance.
Vote AYE to halt The Burn.
Nay? Justify below!
Comments (2)
To those concerned about the impact of Halting The Burn on "tokenomics":
Because the burn every 24 days is 0.006% of supply (and dropping) its effects on "pumpamentals" are negligible.
Because the burn is currently worth ~$300k of treasury firepower, however, effects on operations are significant.
I understand and share the concern about the decreasing treasury inflow and the need to preserve resources for meaningful initiatives.
However, I don’t believe that simply halting the 1% burn is the right solution.
The real issue isn’t the burn itself, but how treasury funds are being used. It’s like a family that keeps spending on unnecessary things; the problem isn’t the money that disappears, but the lack of discipline in how the remaining money is managed. Stopping the burn won’t fix that; it would just postpone the consequences of inefficient spending.
I also understand the risk that the ecosystem could eventually slow down or even paralyze due to a lack of funds, and that’s a legitimate concern. I know Gavin never wanted Polkadot to be run like a company, but in the end, that’s what it is. Whether you prefer to see it as a company, a community, or a family, overspending will always be a problem.
Moreover, we have to acknowledge that this proposal is also influenced by the lack of consistent value and appreciation of the DOT token. Over the years, DOT hasn’t found a clear market direction or strong investor confidence. But let’s be honest, if DOT’s valuation were significantly higher today, this proposal probably wouldn’t exist.
That said, I could support this WFC only if the 1% currently being burned were redirected into a special wallet, managed transparently through OpenGov under a dedicated track (a “Saving Track”, for example), and usable exclusively in cases of extreme urgency, with a very high voting threshold (60–70% support) to ensure broad consensus and prevent misuse. Ideally, those reserves should be held in stable assets rather than DOT, to preserve value and reduce volatility risk in emergency scenarios.
In the long run, it’s not about how many tokens the treasury keeps; it’s about how wisely we use them to build trust, growth, and lasting value for Polkadot.
@The White Rabbit
Just because Halting The Burn doesn't solve ALL problems doesn't mean it's senseless to preserve assets under greatly reduced income.
Anyone paying attention knows the "family" has severely cut spending since Capped & Stepped supply. With the recently passed governance adjustments this conservatism of treasury assets will be even more pronounced.
The problems you mention are already being solved. Halting The Burn is a sensible way to preserve treasury assets for continued OpenGov operations under greatly increased pressure.