Very good.
As stated here, it’s primarily about the psychological effect.
It’s absolutely important to keep that in mind. That’s why it’s important to make the action as public and advertise it as effectively as possible before it’s actually taken.
A campaign must accompany the whole thing. If it only happens behind closed doors, it’s unlikely to have the effect we hope for.
I would also welcome it if, in order to perfect the narrative, there was a change or expansion to the burn mechanisms, even if it was only symbolic. For example, you could say that instead of 80% of the transaction fees, 90 or even 100% will be burned in future.
It’s likely that some large accounts, and perhaps medium or small ones too, will pull out, but that’s not a bad thing. They will be replaced by either committed market participants who are increasing their holdings or newcomers who are essentially building a new base in this way. It’s never a bad thing in an ecosystem if tokens change hands as frequently or regularly as possible.
The measures here are certainly tough and effective, but only if they are publicly advertised and explained, and if their implementation is as radical and concise as possible.
A mild, unnoticed or half-hearted action won’t generate any psychological momentum, but will still lead to the rather undesirable side effects that we naturally buy into.