On September 24, 2026, Sandeep Nailwal, CEO of the Polygon Foundation, announced that the team had permanently destroyed 100 million POL on-chain through pre-deployed smart contracts—this was a one-time, irreversible burning operation, accounting for about 1% of the total POL supply. For POL, which has been in a deflationary state since January 2026 while network activity continues to grow, this additional supply reduction is clearly not a symbolic gesture: previously, the Polygon network had accumulated basic fees totaling only about 12.1 million POL, while the amount directly burned this time was nearly ten times that. More crucially, this is not a promised vision from a white paper, but a completed on-chain accounting. Polygon is solidifying the narrative of a "deflationary network" into a concrete burning event, sending a signal to the market through the active sacrifice of 1% of total supply: it hopes deflation will no longer just be a model parameter but will become specific chips that support the expected value capture of POL.
100 million POL burned: Deflationary narrative moves to reality
The burning of 100 million POL on September 24 is not a symbolic “small test” but a permanent destruction executed once through already deployed smart contracts, directly removing tokens that account for approximately 1% of the total supply from circulation. Since January 2026, POL had been in a deflationary state, but mostly remained at the model and accounting level; according to AiCoin data, the accumulated basic fees on the Polygon network amount to around 12.1 million POL, far smaller than the scale of the active burning. Deflation is no longer just a result accumulated naturally with network usage but has been transformed into an action explicitly triggered by the foundation pressing the “burn button,” inscribing the management's attitude towards long-term scarcity into block heights.
Nailwal deliberately placed this destruction within the narrative of “network activity still growing during deflation” in the announcement: on one side is the sustained deflation and expansion of on-chain usage since January (as described), while on the other is the choice to add a permanent destruction of 1% of total supply at this time, wrapping up and amplifying the trend of the past nine months with a significant sacrifice. More importantly, the contracts related to this destruction have already been opened to the community, allowing any member to trigger execution in the future; Nailwal even suggested that “perhaps quarterly burn events could be considered." Deflation is transitioning from a single event to a form of callable on-chain action, as Polygon attempts to fix the abstract deflation story onto a traceable on-chain timeline through verifiable burning records.
Accumulated fees only in the millions: The blank behind the massive destruction
According to AiCoin data, since POL entered the deflationary range, the actual basic fees deposited on the Polygon network have only been around 12.1 million POL, which can be viewed as the destruction pool “naturally" accumulated from network activity. The direct burning of 100 million POL is several times the size of the basic fees, far exceeding the recorded fee deposits on-chain. This means that even if all historical basic fees were to be cleared in one go, it would not be enough to support the current 1% total supply level of destruction, indicating a noticeable magnitude gap between the two.
More critically, public information has yet to explain the specific source of the 100 million POL: whether they come from the foundation's treasury, reserved shares, or are the result of some internal transfer forming a destruction pool remains unverified. It can be cautiously judged that the destruction scale has clearly exceeded the network's basic fees; this must have utilized other chips, but the composition and constraints of these chips remain opaque. Until more disclosure appears, this seemingly “extreme deflation” of destruction looks more like a large account with an unclear source, and the true value implications will only have an evaluable basis once it is clarified.
On-chain activity continues to grow: Can deflation be transformed into value?
The source of the destruction is still unclear, but the story Polygon wants to tell has become quite evident: since entering a deflationary state in January 2026, Nailwal has repeatedly emphasized that network activity continues to grow, and “expanding during deflation” is placed at the center of the narrative. On one side, the total supply has been actively tightened due to the destruction of 100 million POL, while the accumulated basic fees on-chain have reached about 12.1 million POL, which is still far below the scale of this destruction. This dislocation itself is a signal—the team is attempting to directly bind protocol value to on-chain usage and long-term expectations through additional chip reductions, convincing holders that they own an asset whose scarcity increases over time, rather than a token merely tied to treasury scale.
However, there remains a distance that needs to be filled with data between this narrative and reality. Besides “accumulated basic fees of about 12.1 million POL” and “burning 100 million POL,” public information lacks further quantitative on-chain indicators, offering no insights into specific address actions and lacking a refined ratio between fees and destruction. It is impossible to ascertain whether this “deflation + expansion” structure has already reflected in token pricing and ecological competitiveness. In the current state of information scarcity, “whether deflation can be transformed into value” remains an unresolved equation, the solution of which must be built upon more detailed on-chain indicators and public constraints.
Banks play with tokenization: Another pathway for traditional finance to go on-chain
During the same period when Polygon executed the destruction of 100 million POL through smart contracts, bringing “deflation” to the forefront, several leading banks in the UK were telling their own “tokenization” stories in a completely different way. Lloyds, NatWest, Barclays, and HSBC utilized tokenized deposits to complete the world's first interbank transactions, viewed as a significant advance in the migration of traditional financial infrastructure to on-chain. The briefing did not disclose the specific transaction amounts of this pilot, the detailed roles of participants, nor the name of the blockchain network used, but the banks' willingness to move real liabilities onto the chain for settlement indicates that on-chain is no longer just friendly to pricing and speculative behaviors; it is beginning to carry the core accounting and settlement functions of traditional finance.
If we place Polygon's POL destruction and the tokenized deposits of UK banks in the same diagram, the meaning of the term “tokenization” has nearly split. For the banks, tokenized deposits represent a technical reconstruction of existing liabilities; they essentially remain clients' redeemable balances on the balance sheet, just employing on-chain accounting to enhance settlement efficiency, regulatory traceability, and system connectivity; the value of these tokens is anchored to bank credit and regulatory frameworks, rather than the income of the protocol itself. In contrast, the destruction of POL by Polygon is a deflationary action taken by a crypto-native project surrounding its own protocol token, wherein the token is not anyone's liability but a vessel for network participation, incentives, and potential governance rights, with supply adjustments directly targeting the incentive structure and value distribution within the protocol. Thus, the same term “tokenization” points to on-chain bank liabilities in the context of traditional finance, while it refers to the refined adjustments of protocol token supply and mechanisms in the crypto-native context. Understanding this semantic differentiation is crucial to see that Polygon's current round of deflation is merely a side branch in a larger narrative of going on-chain and not the center of the traditional financial tokenization tide.
Community-triggered contracts: Deflation rhythm moving towards autonomy
Supporting this burning of 100 million POL is not a one-time backend operation but a set of on-chain smart contracts that have already been deployed. Nailwal explicitly stated that the contracts related to this destruction are ready and that they can be triggered not only by the foundation but are open for execution by any community member. This implies that, from a technical pathway perspective, the destruction of POL has been integrated into a protocol-style process, becoming an on-chain “option” that can be called upon at any time, rather than merely an abstract commitment existing in announcements.
In discussing possible future paths, Nailwal mentioned that the community “could consider conducting a POL burn quarterly,” but this statement currently remains at the conceptual level, being merely his personal public expression and has not yet elevated to an established mechanism or binding rule. What truly carries weight is the already launched and permission-open contracts: if the community forms some sort of rhythmic consensus for triggering based on existing tools, Polygon's deflation could evolve from a one-time event into a community-driven long-term strategy, where the frequency and scale of burning are no longer solely decided by a single center but are continuously rewritten at the intersection of on-chain processes and autonomous negotiation.
What to watch next: Burn frequency and network expansion
Since January 2026, POL has entered a deflationary state. According to Nailwal's description, the Polygon network activity has continued to grow during this time, and on September 24, the once-only permanent burning of 100 million POL, accounting for about 1% of the total supply, transformed the “deflation story” into an on-chain action that can be repeatedly called. The real focus moving forward should be on whether the community will continue to utilize this open-permission contract: whether the triggers for burning will form some sort of routine rhythm, and whether clearer correlations will emerge between the scale of burning and the accumulation of network fees, as well as the pace of ecological expansion. In a wider financial landscape, several banks in the UK have completed the first interbank transactions using tokenized deposits, traditional institutions have found another pathway to go on-chain, while crypto-native networks like Polygon are betting on whether deflation and autonomy mechanisms can create differentiated value; whether this bet can ultimately be proven by on-chain data and long-term adoption will be the core variable for further observation.
Join our community to discuss together and become stronger!
AiCoin exclusive Hyperliquid benefits: https://app.hyperliquid.xyz/join/AICOIN88
AiCoin exclusive Aster benefits: https://www.asterdex.com/en/referral/9C50e2
On-chain Telegram community: https://t.me/AiCoinWhaleData
On-chain community: https://www.aicoin.com/link/chat?cid=N6OVMor5g
AiCoin on-chain Twitter: https://x.com/aicoinwhaledata
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
