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

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit36 min fa

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit36 min fa

First Day Review of "Musk's WeChat" XChat: Even Worse Than Expected

Elon Musk's much-anticipated "WeChat-like" app, XChat, has officially launched after multiple delays. The initial review reveals a product that falls short of expectations, offering an experience largely similar to X Platform's (formerly Twitter) direct messages, despite being marketed as an encrypted communication tool. Key observations from the first-day test include: 1. The app's promoted "end-to-end encryption" and its claimed relation to Bitcoin's architecture were criticized by experts as a superficial attempt to capitalize on crypto buzz, with no real technical connection. 2. Musk's vision of an ad-free "secure communication system" is technically met, but only because the app is currently extremely basic, featuring only a single chat interface. 3. A promised anti-screenshot feature appears inconsistent; it works in X Platform group chats but fails within the XChat app itself, where screenshots still capture avatars. 4. The app supports 45 languages and has a 16+ age rating, indicating a broader tolerance for content compared to WeChat's 13+ rating. 5. A puzzling login process requires users to verify the email associated with their X account. 6. The touted encryption" feels minimal in practice, with its presence only indicated by a simple "Encrypted - Yes" label on messages. 7. Disappearing message timers for groups can be set from 5 minutes to 4 weeks, with the timer starting upon being read by a user. 8. Group invite links are shared with X Platform groups. 9. Group size limits are planned to be increased, aiming for 1000 members, a move that has drawn user criticism. 10. The app offers 8 different colored icons, and its chat bubbles are notably similar to WeChat's. Message deletion options mimic Telegram's. Crucially, many pre-announced features like importing X contacts, integrating Grok AI, X Money payments, and Cashtags are not yet available. The initial release is seen as a bare-bones and underwhelming first step.

Odaily星球日报1 h fa

First Day Review of "Musk's WeChat" XChat: Even Worse Than Expected

Odaily星球日报1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片