Please note there has been no token burn for BOB.

The verified total supply on BscScan is 420.69 trillion BOB, and this amount has remained unchanged since the day BOB was first deployed.

So the question arises:

If the BOB developer has renounced ownership, doesn’t that mean they gave up control over their own project? Why would someone give up ownership of something they built?

That’s exactly what makes BOB different.

Ownership was renounced to ensure stability, transparency, and full commitment to decentralization.

If the developer wants to make money from the project, the only legal and fair way is to buy BOB from the DEX or CEX like everyone else and sell it when the price rises.

We can never know how much or when the developer might have bought BOB from the market. But they have no privileged access.

No one in this world doesn’t want money.

So if the developer wants profit, they must buy BOB like the rest of us. And if you want to make money, then you have to buy BOB too. It’s that simple.

Now imagine if a developer sells tokens they minted for free that breaks the supply and demand principle and causes inflation.

The BOB developer has never sold a single token, and I’ve verified that on-chain via BscScan. There is no evidence of any sell action by the deployer.

Here’s an analogy:

Let’s say Trump owns McDonald's. If he wants to eat McD, he still has to pay.

Would a real businessman eat for free from his own business forever? Of course not. Because a good business must respect supply and demand to stay financially balanced.

So once again, understand deeply how supply and demand relates to renounced ownership and the absence of a mint function in a smart contract.

follow me for another update.