Injective Passes Vote to Cut INJ Supply and Boost Deflation

TheNewsCryptoPubblicato 2026-01-20Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-01-20

Introduzione

The Injective community has overwhelmingly approved governance proposal IIP-617, passing with 99.89% support. This update significantly accelerates the network's deflationary strategy by reducing the rate of new INJ token emissions. It does not introduce a new burn mechanism but instead makes the existing token issuance more restrictive. This change works alongside the ongoing Community BuyBack program, which uses ecosystem revenue to buy and burn INJ on the open market. The proposal is the latest step in Injective's long-term plan to structurally reduce supply, building on previous upgrades like IIP-392. Despite these improved tokenomics, INJ's market performance remains volatile and heavily influenced by broader market sentiment, not just supply dynamics.

The Injective community has approved a governance proposal that reshapes the network’s token economics and pushes INJ into a more aggressive deflationary phase. The vote, submitted as IIP-617, concluded on Jan. 19 after four days and passed with overwhelming support, signaling strong alignment among participating token holders.

According to the results, 99.89% of voters backed the proposal. The update alters certain inflation rates for Injective and speeds up the reduction in new token emissions. When this deployment is live, Injective will emit new INJ tokens at a slower rate but retain other mechanisms for burning INJ in circulation.

The proposal marks another major step in Injective’s long-running strategy to treat supply reduction as a core design feature rather than a market-driven outcome.

What changes under IIP-617

INJ plays a central role inside the Injective ecosystem. It secures the network through staking, supports governance participation, and acts as the key asset that coordinates activity across the chain’s DeFi and trading products.

Since its mainnet launch, Injective has relied on recurring token burns to permanently remove INJ from circulation. Until now, it has burnt approximately 6.85 million INJ, which has helped to limit supply and further promote the idea of deflation for this project.

A new burn or buy-back mechanism has not been added by IIP-617 but has further reduced the issuance mechanism that already exists in the protocol. In effect, Injective now combines two supply controls: direct issuance reduction and ongoing burn activity.

The proposal also keeps the Injective Community BuyBack program intact. That initiative uses ecosystem-generated revenue to purchase INJ on the open market and burn it repeatedly. Rather than replacing this program, IIP-617 makes it more effective by ensuring fewer new tokens offset the burns.

Earlier upgrades prepared the groundwork

This approach in the sector has undergone some transformations as there have been various upgrade levels. Injective has, in the past, brought levels of policy change in its INJ 3.0 roadmap, as well as utilized governance in constraining the sector’s supply dynamics.

Instead, in 2024, the community collectively passed IIP-392 almost uniformly. This upgrade strengthened deflation by 400% and also made it more related to staking participation. The idea was simple, and it aimed at ensuring the supply behavior of the network dynamically changed according to the network conditions.

After that, in 2025, Injective introduced another factor by associating a reduction in supply planning with the halving cycle of Bitcoin. Now, Injective reduces these factors even further through IIP-617 by speeding up the reduction in issuance. The goal is to create a more structural deflation.

Members of the Injective Foundation also revealed their involvement in the process, shedding more light on how core contributors participated in the proposal.

Market reaction stays mixed

Despite the increased levels of deflation, it is still not linear with respect to INJ’s performance on the market. INJ has been volatile on the market from 2025 to 2026. INJ is still down 75% from last year, and this is giving investors reasons to be cautious despite the improved tokenomics.

Such a price dynamic highlights another evident truth about cryptocurrency markets: supply mechanisms are important but tend to be driven more by market sentiment on a shorter timeline. Market liquidity cycles and overall Bitcoin sentiment continue to be more influential for INJ than simple token burning events.

However, the move is definitely a significant indicator. Injective is setting itself for a further supply-constrained environment, and it is doing it through the means of governance and not through marketing packages. Now, with two deflationary mechanisms in place, it is clear that the network is trying to ensure that INJ is made even rarer in the long run. Whether the price will show the effects of it or not is to be seen.

Highlighted Crypto News:

South Korea Uncovers $101.7M Crypto Laundering Scheme Linked to Cross-Border Payments

TagsCrypto TokenDeFiInjectiveToken Burntrading

Domande pertinenti

QWhat was the result of the Injective governance proposal IIP-617 vote?

AThe proposal passed with overwhelming support, with 99.89% of voters backing it.

QWhat is the primary goal of IIP-617 regarding the INJ token?

AThe primary goal is to reshape the network's token economics by reducing the rate of new token emissions, thereby pushing INJ into a more aggressive deflationary phase.

QHow does the Injective Community BuyBack program work?

AThe program uses ecosystem-generated revenue to purchase INJ on the open market and repeatedly burn it, permanently removing tokens from circulation.

QWhat previous upgrade significantly increased INJ's deflation rate and tied it to staking participation?

AThe IIP-392 upgrade, passed in 2024, increased deflation by 400% and made it more related to staking participation.

QDespite the new deflationary measures, what is the current state of INJ's market performance according to the article?

AINJ's market performance has been volatile, and it is still down 75% from the previous year, indicating that market sentiment and liquidity cycles remain highly influential.

Letture associate

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

A Spanish La Liga club, reportedly Osasuna, purchased insurance against relegation and was linked to a transaction of over $1 million on the prediction market platform Kalshi, betting against its own victory in a crucial season-ending match. While Osasuna confirmed buying €1.2 million insurance for a potential €6 million payout in case of relegation through broker Howden, it did not confirm involvement with Kalshi. The reported trade involved intermediaries like Game Point Capital and Greenlight Commodities, with quant firm Susquehanna as the counterparty. This incident highlights the blurring line between financial hedging and gambling in prediction markets. Such markets allow trading on future event outcomes, like sports results. In the US, Kalshi operates as a regulated event contract market under the CFTC. However, Spanish authorities recently initiated penalties against Kalshi and Polymarket, considering their activities unlicensed gambling. The case raises core questions about prediction markets: who can trade, how insider information is handled, and whether participants can influence outcomes, especially in sports where results are human-driven. While leagues like La Liga and Serie A have partnered with Polymarket in North America, the regulatory clash and potential for conflicts of interest, as seen in this club's alleged transaction, present significant challenges as prediction markets evolve toward institutional risk management.

Foresight News7 min fa

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

Foresight News7 min fa

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

How much of Arthur Hayes's market credibility remains? Recently, the "godfather of crypto perpetual swaps" and BitMEX co-founder has faced public criticism, including accusations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT about creating exit liquidity for his followers. Starting last week, Hayes executed multiple sudden sell-offs. He had repeatedly publicly predicted the HYPE token would reach $150. After a $100,000 bet defending Hyperliquid on June 1st, he announced just three days later that he had completely sold his HYPE and NEAR holdings, successfully exiting near the peak. He also sold ZEC and WLD. His sale of WLD appeared to be a classic "pump and dump" maneuver. On June 3rd, he publicly set a $10 target for WLD, causing its price to surge over 35%. By June 6th, he announced he had sold his WLD, citing "anomalous" SpaceX pre-IPO price action, which triggered a sharp price drop. On June 9th, Hayes published a lengthy article explaining his actions, citing factors like rising energy costs and a potential AI bubble burst. Consequently, his family office, Maelstrom, now holds positions in US energy producers and only core crypto assets BTC and ETH, having sold AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. This pattern is not new. In 2025, he similarly touted HYPE before selling it at what turned out to be a cycle peak, only to repurchase it at the next cycle's low. Similar scenarios played out with tokens like ETHFI and ENA. Long-term observers have developed a strategy: ignore Hayes's public statements but closely monitor his on-chain actions—be cautious following his buys, but decisively follow his sells. If he continues these tactics, especially as seen with the WLD case, his market credibility risks being permanently damaged. As Hayes himself admitted in his latest article, "I remain an unapologetic gambler."

marsbit25 min fa

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

marsbit25 min fa

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

The article details a series of absurd and revealing anecdotes shared by Silicon Valley founders about their venture capital fundraising experiences, sparked by Greg Isenberg's story of pitching to a sleeping a16z partner. Founders describe surreal pitch meetings: one faced a barefoot, peanut-eating investor who offered triple the requested amount after 30 seconds; another performed a pitch in a VC's parked car; a founder discovered his audience understood no English beyond "yes." These stories highlight the often irrational and performative nature of fundraising. Beyond the absurdity, darker power imbalances are exposed. Stories include investors suggesting founders fire co-founders for their equity, blatant market misjudgments, disrespectful behavior from LPs, and discriminatory remarks. A debate also emerges around "Sequoia's" practice of splitting a round into two valuations. However, the thread isn't solely critical. Positive counter-narratives celebrate supportive VCs who offered crucial advice during crises, respected founders' timelines, and showed simple gestures of respect—like a partner personally fetching coffee before a major pitch. Ultimately, the collective sharing acts as a pressure release, illustrating that fundraising is a complex dance of power, trust, and sometimes sheer theater. It underscores that beyond capital, mutual respect and integrity remain the most enduring foundations of the founder-investor relationship.

marsbit38 min fa

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

marsbit38 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片