Here are some of the major cryptocurrencies other than BTC / ETH that either are deflationary (or have strong deflationary mechanics), or are widely considered good bets if you want scarcity built into the token-economics. I’ll also include pros/cons so you can see trade-offs. Always do your own deeper research, especially for regulatory / technical risks.


Panaprium is independent and reader supported. If you buy something through our link, we may earn a commission. If you can, please support us on a monthly basis. It takes less than a minute to set up, and you will be making a big impact every single month. Thank you!

🔍 Notable “Deflationary or Scarcity + Utility” Coins

Coin What Makes It Deflationary or Scarce What Makes It Attractive What to Watch / Downsides
BNB (Binance Coin) Regular burns: Binance conducts quarterly auto-burns + fees from transactions (gas on BNB Smart Chain) are burned. Supply reduction over time. (AInvest) Very high usage (exchange, chain gas, etc.), strong brand + network effects. Deflationary model is transparent. Regulatory risk (exchanges get scrutinized), centralization criticisms, burn schedule and locked supply matter. Still many tokens left to unlock / burns scheduled for many years.
Litecoin (LTC) Hard cap supply (84 million) + halving every ~4 years (like Bitcoin). Makes it scarce. (Which Proxies) It has long history, decent adoption, easier to move than Bitcoin sometimes, recognized name. Slower growth relative to smart contract chains; less “deflationary action” beyond the halving; fewer “deflationary burns” beyond the basic issuance schedule.
XRP A portion of transaction fees is burned (i.e. small deflationary pressure per transaction). (alwin.io) Ripple has strong use-case for cross-border payments; if usage increases, so do fees and burns. Regulatory issues (Ripple vs regulators), volatility, the burn mechanism is relatively modest vs the large supply.
Polygon (MATIC) Part of its transaction fees are burned (i.e. a fee burn component), which adds deflationary pressure. (Management.Org) Active chain, strong adoption, many projects building on Polygon; burns help when usage is high. Transaction volumes fluctuate; inflation vs issuance of new tokens for incentives (staking, rewards) can offset burns; sometimes supply growth still outstrips burn.
Solana (SOL) Though not strictly deflationary always, it has a burn component for fees. The supply dynamics are mixed: issuance + burn. Net deflation depends on usage. (Which Proxies) Very high throughput, many developers, apps, etc. If usage surges, fee burns could become significant. If usage drops, issuance may dominate; inflation from staking rewards etc. Also, chain congestion, outages, etc. risk.
Fantom (FTM) Burns some percentage of transaction fees. That means part of every transfer costs removes supply. (Cryptonews) Fast chain, lots of DeFi interest, interoperability; burns help scarcity when usage is steady. Utility needs to keep growing; competition; inflation (via rewards) could counterbalance burn; vulnerability to network / governance issues.

🧮 What to Look for When Evaluating Deflationary Coins

If you're trying to pick other coins with “deflationary potential” that could be strong, here are important traits / criteria:

  1. Transparent burn schedule or mechanisms — burns tied to fees, or scheduled burns, buybacks, etc.

  2. Strong utility / real usage — because deflation only matters if people use the network (fee burns, transaction demand).

  3. Capped supply or supply limits — coins that are inflationary without a cap are riskier, unless burn mechanisms are very strong.

  4. Token unlock / vesting schedules — many tokens start with large locked amounts. Those could be unlocked, increasing supply and countering deflation effects.

  5. Governance & decentralization / risk — centralized tokens or centralized control over burns can pose risk; regulation, protocol changes might alter deflation features.

  6. Adoption & network effects — more usage = more fees = more burns (if that’s the mechanism). Scaling, security, developer support matter.



Here are some major / reasonably large coins today that exhibit deflationary or disinflationary features (or at least have mechanisms reducing supply over time), along with pros/cons. None are “perfect” — supply dynamics depend heavily on usage, tokenomics, unlocks, etc.

📋 Candidates with Deflationary / Scarcity Mechanics

Token Deflationary / Scarcity Feature(s) What Makes It Attractive Risks / What to Watch
BNB (Binance Coin) Regular “burns” — Binance commits part of its profits / transaction volume to buy back BNB and burn it. (Bitbond) Strong utility (exchange fees, gas, launchpads, etc.), broad ecosystem presence, relatively more “established” compared to newer burn tokens. The burn schedule / amount is subject to governance / corporate decision. Regulatory pressure on exchanges could hurt utility. Also, many tokens are still allocated / not burned yet.
AVAX (Avalanche) Transaction fees are burned, which reduces circulating supply gradually. (Blockpit) Avalanche has a strong developer ecosystem, high throughput, and the deflationary burn gives it an extra scarcity narrative if usage increases. If usage falls, issuance may dominate. Also, many tokens may be unlocked over time. If the burn rate is too small compared to inflation or reward issuance, the net effect could be marginal.
Polygon (MATIC) Has a burn component tied to gas / transaction fees (i.e. part of the fee is burned) — thereby reducing supply as activity increases. (This is often cited in broader lists of deflationary tokens) (Coinranking) Strong adoption in scaling / Layer 2 space. If demand for Polygon’s chain / usage keeps rising, burn mechanisms help tilt supply downward. The burn might not always outpace inflation (staking rewards, token emissions). Also, competition from other L2s (Arbitrum, Optimism, etc.) is fierce.
XRP Burns a tiny portion of transaction fees (on the Ripple protocol) to fend off spam and maintain the network. (Cointelegraph) It has established presence in payments / cross-border remittance, institutional partnerships, etc. The burn is modest but adds a scarcity tilt. The burn is small; it's not enough alone to strongly deflate supply. Also regulatory risk (Ripple vs regulators) is a key overhang.
CAKE (PancakeSwap token) Uses multiple burn / deflation mechanisms: protocol fees, manual burns, etc. (Bitbond) If PancakeSwap remains a major DEX / DeFi hub in Binance Smart Chain / BNB Chain, use and fees can drive burns. Much depends on the volume, competition from other DEXs and chains, and token emission (reward issuance) pressure.
SafeMoon (more speculative) “Burn on transaction” model and “reflection / redistribution” mechanics have been part of its design in various versions. (Note: historically very high risk) (alwin.io) High-risk / high-reward; if tokenomics are improved and community / adoption picks up, deflationary mechanics give upside. Very speculative. Token mechanics, hacks, mismanagement, regulatory scrutiny, and market sentiment can all severely hurt it.

🧭 How to Evaluate Which Ones Are “Best”

When comparing these, consider:

  1. Magnitude of burn vs inflation — A token might burn fees, but if issuance or rewards are large, net effect could still be inflationary or neutral.

  2. Utility / adoption — Scarcity is helpful only if people use the network. If usage is low, the burn does little.

  3. Unlock / vesting schedule — If many tokens are locked and will unlock soon, supply could flood back in.

  4. Governance / control — How much control the team has over the burn schedule or tokenomics changes.

  5. Regulation & risk — Tokens tied closely to exchanges or in heavily regulated domains might face legal or policy risks.

 



Was this article helpful to you? Please tell us what you liked or didn't like in the comments below.



Disclaimer: The above content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Always do your own research and consider consulting with a licensed financial advisor or accountant before making any financial decisions. Panaprium does not guarantee, vouch for or necessarily endorse any of the above content, nor is responsible for it in any manner whatsoever. Any opinions expressed here are based on personal experiences and should not be viewed as an endorsement or guarantee of specific outcomes. Investing and financial decisions carry risks, and you should be aware of these before proceeding.

About the Author: Alex Assoune


What We're Up Against


Multinational corporations overproducing cheap products in the poorest countries.
Huge factories with sweatshop-like conditions underpaying workers.
Media conglomerates promoting unethical, unsustainable products.
Bad actors encouraging overconsumption through oblivious behavior.
- - - -
Thankfully, we've got our supporters, including you.
Panaprium is funded by readers like you who want to join us in our mission to make the world entirely sustainable.

If you can, please support us on a monthly basis. It takes less than a minute to set up, and you will be making a big impact every single month. Thank you.



Tags

0 comments

PLEASE SIGN IN OR SIGN UP TO POST A COMMENT.