Explanation about add liquidity and keep a part of the total supply

In the first transactions of many tokens we often see a situation like the one in the following example, I would like to understand point by point in a definitive way what it means:

  • Dev made a token named XYZ
  • Deploy it on BSC with total supply of 1000 XYZ
  • Send to a “0x000…00dead” address 500 XYZ (useless burn, but ok…)
  • Add liquidity to 400 XYZ
  • Now anyone can buy and sell the XYZ token
  1. What happens to the remaining 100 tokens? I mean, they will remain in the deployer wallet, right? But deployer can swap/sell them? With what market value?

  2. The 500 tokens “burned” even if they are not recoverable, do they still have the same value as the others? I mean that if, by some absurdity, I had access to that wallet, I could swap / sell them?

  3. Why add liquidity only to 40% of total supply? Only that 40% will be tradable or intere initial supply?

  4. If a developer wants to keep some tokens for themselves (what they call a dev wallet) the right thing to do is send a portion of the tokens to their wallet AFTER adding liquidity, or add liquidity to the tokens they DO NOT want to keep for themselves?

  5. What if add liquidity to only 1 token in a 1000 contract supply?

  6. If have a supply of 500.000.000.000 and a maxTransaction of 2.500.000.000 what is a good value for “numTokensSellToAddToLiquidity”? Many contract use 10% of maxTransaction, but I don’t know why and how to calculate.

Thank you all!

Hi, some of the answers are quite complex but let’s have a look:

  1. No, they remain in the owner’s wallet and have the same value as any other 100 tokens. They can be sold/swapped.

  2. Yes they do; this is just a soft burn. A hard (true) burn doesn’t really make sense in RFI as the value of your tokens is already increasing through the reflection. I think this is really just for the optics/marketing … people don’t understand burning really anyway

  3. Yeah well, there could be some valid reasons to keep that 10% of tokens; eg as a reward for staking (later on) but mostly I bet it’s just a greedy/scammy dev trying to take your $

  4. I don’t think it really matters

  5. Then people will be able to trade only 1 token

  6. Yeah 10% seems to be what’s used - I guess the reason is (in most cases) that people have no clue about it :wink:


About point 3. Is possible to give liquidity to that 10% later if the 40% is holded and and there are no more tokens to buy? If token still be holded by dev i mean

1 Like

Sure, but 1) the LP token price is set by the initial supply 2) community and holders will not look at those 10% sitting in the owners/devs wallet kindly. Unless there’s a good reason to keep those 10% I see no reason not to put them into the LP


Marketing and Developement! Advertising cost! Marketing and developement do not end once the Token is launched. It's only the beginning. If developers do not retain a certain % of the tokens, whose going to Market it? Whose going to pay for that marketing? Most people think that they can just create a token and sit back and watch the $$$ flow in and that it will automatically get investors. No. It has to be marketed and that marketing cost money. Getting listed on exchanges is not free. $1500-$3000 and as much as $15k and up to be listed on an exchange. Whose going to pay for that? Audits! To be listed on certain exchanges the contracts have to be audited. Up to $5000 and higher for audits. Whose going to pay for that? Developers must retain a certain amount of tokens for marketing and developement to offset the cost. If not then who would want to create a token.

If the developer invest thousands of dollars of his or her own money to create and market a token but does not compensate themselves for their initial investment they would be losing money.

I read one post where a person said that developers should burn all their tokens and buy in like everyone else! Uhh, hold on. What about the $$$ they've invested? Are they supposed to just count that as a loss?

1 Like

How about this scenario.

Token launched with large # and also and say 35% burn. Market cap around $2.5 million

A new contract launches with revised tokenomics and reduced supply.

Everyone gets same % share but that burn wallet is now absent and market cap and liquidity are reduced by $450,000 and Dev/mktg wallet is inflated and received more than original share.

Did someone steal $450,000? Shouldn’t they have rebased according to holdings without burn wallet?

What recourse if embezzlement?

Please help me understand.