The next round of value reassessment for platform tokens will no longer rely on stories but on actual performance. Truly valuable platform tokens in the long term must excel simultaneously in four areas: clear mechanisms, clean supply, real-world scenarios, and continuous platform expansion. Recently, the destruction plans completed by BNB and BGB have once again brought the value logic of platform tokens into focus.

Author: OneShotBug

Since the last cycle, platform tokens are no longer just "transaction fee discount coupons." From destruction mechanisms, profit participation, on-chain staking to governance attributes, major centralized exchanges (CEX) are continuously reconstructing the value support logic of their platform tokens.

As the industry enters a new adjustment cycle, user expectations for platform tokens have also changed significantly—from "how much will it rise" to "what will drive the rise." Simple marketing drives are no longer sustainable; instead, there is a focus on whether the deflationary mechanism is real and effective, whether the usage scenarios are continuously active, and whether the platform's growth is healthy.

Recently, Binance and Bitget announced the completion of their destruction plans. BNB's 31st destruction involved approximately 1.579 million tokens, accounting for about 1.1% of the total supply; while BGB's first quarterly destruction involved 30 million tokens, accounting for about 2.5% of the total supply. The platform token sector is transitioning from "having mechanisms" to "executing mechanisms," and the strategic differences between new and old platforms on the deflationary path are becoming increasingly apparent.

This article will compare the structural design and performance of current mainstream platform tokens across the following core dimensions:

● Actual strength of the deflationary mechanism

● Total supply structure and release risks

● Actual usage scenarios and ecological binding degree

● Growth capability of the trading platform

● Market performance and value anchoring logic

Through a series of horizontal data, structural charts, and qualitative observations, we aim to help users clarify the differences and advantages of mainstream platform tokens in mechanism design and implementation effectiveness.

1. Comparison of Deflationary Strength: Who is Truly Destroying? Who is Still Telling Stories?

The deflationary design of platform tokens is the primary dimension for users to judge their long-term value. However, "having a destruction mechanism" does not equate to "truly executing deflation." The key lies in two questions:

● Is the destruction frequency stable?

● Is the destruction ratio sufficiently impactful?

Currently, there are significant differences in the performance of several mainstream platform tokens regarding their deflationary mechanisms. Below is an overview of the verifiable mechanisms and execution rhythms:

BGB's first quarterly destruction in Q1 2025 reached 2.5%, surpassing BNB's historical record.

After this destruction, BNB has cumulatively destroyed 1,579,207 BNB, equivalent to approximately $916 million, accounting for about 1.13% of its total supply. This destruction action continues its mature deflationary mechanism and reflects Binance's long-term investment in managing the value of platform tokens.

However, if we observe from the dimension of "this round's destruction amount vs. current market value," BGB's market elasticity is even more pronounced:

It can be seen that although the amount of funds for this round of BNB destruction reached $900 million, approximately 6.9 times that of BGB, BNB's market value is 16.5 times that of BGB.

This means that in terms of the "relative pressure" of destruction funds to market value, BGB is far higher than BNB.

This structural asymmetry releases a key signal: BGB's current valuation is still in the "undervalued" stage, and its market value foundation has not fully reflected Bitget's platform growth, deflationary execution capability, and ecological binding results.

In other words, the same scale of deflationary behavior has a more direct price impact and stronger value reassessment elasticity on mid-early stage assets like BGB. This is why this round of BGB destruction is not only a point of mechanism execution but may also be the starting point for "structural value uplift."

Comparison Commentary:

● BNB has a relatively mature deflationary mechanism, adopting a dual-track model of BEP-95 automatic destruction + quarterly manual destruction, with a clear rhythm and stable mechanism. The latest quarterly destruction amount reached $916 million, and its deflationary execution capability remains one of the strongest among mainstream platform tokens. However, its single round destruction ratio has long been maintained at around 1%, and the marginal price pressure is significantly reduced due to its large market value, reflecting more of a "steady compression" rather than price-driven.

● BGB exhibits structural characteristics of "light market value, high deflationary pressure." The first quarterly destruction reached a 2.5% ratio; although the destruction amount is far less than BNB, its proportion to market value is nearly three times that of BNB, creating a stronger supply reduction effect. Combined with its execution mechanism linked to on-chain usage and its currently undervalued market value, BGB's deflationary behavior has a more significant marginal impact on price, typical of a high-growth platform token.

● OKB is currently in a state of "having destruction commitments but lacking execution disclosure." Although the white paper clearly states the existence of a deflationary mechanism, the actual destruction rhythm is opaque, amounts are not disclosed, and paths are unverifiable, making it difficult for users to establish stable expectations, leading to relatively mild support for the token price and market feedback.

2. Total Supply Structure and Release Pressure: Who Has Clearer Supply?

To judge the deflationary potential of a platform token, it is essential to look not only at the destruction ratio but also at whether its supply structure is clear:

● Is the total supply capped?

● Are there still large proportions of team or foundation shares to be released?

● What is the circulation ratio? Is there a risk of "future dumping"?

Below is a comparison of the supply structures of current mainstream platform tokens (data from official white papers, on-chain information, and market platform disclosures):

Comparison Commentary:

● Although BNB has a target total supply of 200 million and continues to reduce supply through an automatic destruction mechanism, there are still some historical reserved shares that have not been fully unlocked. Its supply structure is relatively stable, but complete closure will take time.

● BGB is one of the few platform tokens that have been "fully released." By the end of 2024, Bitget officially destroyed 800 million BGB originally belonging to the team in one go, compressing the total supply from 2 billion to 1.2 billion, and announced that it is currently in a 100% fully circulating state, with no subsequent unlocking impact or distribution risk.

● OKB's supply structure has some uncertainties, possibly involving team holdings and undisclosed unlocking plans. The "future supply elasticity" of such platform tokens is relatively large, making it difficult for users to accurately assess whether the deflationary effect can be maintained in the long term.

In the value assessment of platform tokens, capped supply + fully circulating state is the basic foundation for building "scarcity expectations." BGB's approach is to completely eliminate supply-side uncertainties by locking in total quantity and release rhythm in advance, guiding market attention to the main logic of "actual usage driving value."

3. Actual Usage Scenarios: It's Not About Who Has More Uses, But Who is Used More Frequently

The more usage scenarios a platform token has, the theoretically stronger its value support. However, in reality, "available" ≠ "frequently used," and "nominal support" ≠ "users are genuinely using it."

What truly deserves attention is which platform tokens frequently appear in product participation entry points and continuously form a positive cycle of "locking - deflation - value feedback" through usage.

Below is a comparison of the coverage of current mainstream platform tokens in both on-platform (CeFi) and on-chain (DeFi) usage dimensions:

Comparison Commentary:

● BNB, as an established platform token in the industry, still leads in product usage breadth and ecological maturity. As the core gas asset of BSC (now BNB Chain), it is naturally embedded in numerous on-chain DeFi scenarios. However, due to the large user base, the average participation yield per user has decreased, somewhat weakening the motivation to participate in BNB.

● BGB's usage scenarios have rapidly expanded in recent years, frequently used not only in Bitget's core products (such as Launchpool, Launchpad, PoolX) but also linked to wealth management areas, Earn strategy combinations, and fee discounts. Moreover, most of these products require staking or locking BGB to participate, forming a stable "holding - locking - earning" chain in actual operations.

● OKB supports functions such as participating in project issuance and fee discounts, but its on-chain usage capability is weak, and the pace of new product launches is slow, leading to low user usage frequency and insufficient binding stickiness.

Taking Bitget's Launch series products as an example, BGB is almost the ticket currency for participating in all new projects, with multiple activities attracting hundreds of thousands of users. At the same time, BGB provides functions such as gas payment and on-chain staking within the Bitget Wallet ecosystem and plans to expand into NFT minting, DAO governance, and other Web3 scenarios. These layouts indicate that BGB is not only used frequently at the CeFi level but is also gradually building an on-chain application closed loop, enhancing its potential as a "central asset" in the ecosystem.

In comparison, BNB's usage has entered a stable period; although its functional coverage is broad, the marginal benefits for users are weakening. Meanwhile, BGB is still in the early stage of "function unlocking + user expansion," and as on-chain DAO governance, NFT purchase rights, and other functions go live, it may further expand its usage closed loop.

4. Platform Support: The Stronger the Platform, the More Valuable the Token

Image data source: CoinGecko, April 14, 2025

Ultimately, the value of platform tokens comes down to "platform credit." The deflationary mechanism determines scarcity, usage scenarios determine demand strength, but the final valuation anchor still depends on the actual scale, ecological layout, and development trends of the underlying exchange.

In other words: the medium to long-term value of platform tokens relies on the real growth capability of the platform, not on conceptual stimulation.

Below is a comparison of some key data from mainstream platforms (data source: CoinGecko, April 14, 2025):

Next, based on TokenInsight's “2024 Annual Report on Crypto Exchanges”, we will conduct a comparative analysis of the development of the three major exchanges in 2024:

● Binance: Market leader, but growth is slowing. As the most influential crypto exchange globally, Binance remains the top player in terms of spot trading, derivatives, and user base. By 2024, its spot trading share reached 48.2%, indicating that its platform token BNB has a strong user coverage and ecological foundation. However, Binance's total annual market share has declined from 42.2% to 32.7%, showing signs of marginal slowdown in user growth and share stability.

● Bitget: A typical high-growth platform with impressive ascent. Bitget has been the standout "second-tier leader" over the past year. By 2024, its spot trading share grew by 8.06%, with an overall market share increase of 5.2 percentage points, and its derivatives share approaching 12%. Mainstream cryptocurrencies like BTC and ETH are actively traded, with a total 24-hour trading volume exceeding $3.6 billion. Notably, Bitget's growth is not reliant on a single highlight but is driven by multiple areas including contracts, copy trading, wealth management, and wallet ecology, gradually forming a trinity structure of exchange + wallet + product platform, which also constitutes the value foundation of BGB.

● OKX: Stable share, deep product line but limited breakthroughs. OKX is a traditional strong platform, maintaining a certain market presence in derivatives (15% share). However, its spot trading share has become somewhat passive under the impact of emerging platforms, with its market share declining from 16.6% to 11.8% in 2024, and its BTC/ETH liquidity indicators are also lower than Bitget's. The usage logic of OKB within the platform is relatively conservative, and its ecological binding is not as strong as BNB and BGB, which also somewhat affects its valuation ceiling.

The strength of a platform is the underlying anchor for the value of its platform token. From the current landscape:

● Binance represents "asset security" and "broad circulation";

● Bitget represents "growth potential" and "mechanism evolution";

● OKX is relatively conservative, and the support for its platform token needs to be further released.

From this perspective, BGB's current price structure is still in the "high-growth platform token" valuation discount phase, providing a realistic foundation for repricing.

5. Market Performance Review: Trends, Liquidity, and Valuation Elasticity Over the Past Year

The structure and mechanism of platform tokens are indeed important, but ultimately, how the market perceives them boils down to three indicators:

● Price trends (can they reflect structural value)

● Trading activity (average daily liquidity and participation intensity)

● Valuation rationality (current pricing vs. potential space)

Below is a comparison of the market performance of the three major platform tokens from April 14, 2024, to April 13, 2025 (data source: CoinMarketCap):

Note: V/MC = Average daily trading volume ÷ Market capitalization, used to measure activity and liquidity.

Comparison Commentary:

● BNB performed steadily with a slight increase, continuing to maintain its characteristics as a leading asset in the crypto market. Its relatively low turnover reflects its positioning as a "value store."

● BGB has seen an increase of over 260% in the past year, making it one of the strongest performing platform tokens. A relatively high V/MC indicates that it may still be undervalued by the market, with significant upside potential.

● OKB's market capitalization and trading volume are relatively neutral, lacking clear driving forces.

6. Who Has Long-Term Value Logic?

The positioning of platform tokens is undergoing an evolution from "tool-type" to "asset-type."

In the early stages, the role of most platform tokens was very simple—fee discounts, participation in new projects, and earning small profit margins. Essentially, they were "user incentive tokens" for the platform, lacking scarcity and independent value logic, with market pricing largely dependent on sentiment and market fluctuations.

However, starting in 2021, especially as leading platforms built their own ecosystems and promoted on-chain expansion, platform tokens gradually took on three deeper roles:

1. Deflation Anchor: Binding Platform Business Growth

● BNB: Links destruction to on-chain transaction fees through BEP-95;

● BGB: Achieves a dual destruction path based on on-chain usage fees + fixed destruction amounts;

This means: the richer the usage scenarios → the more destruction → the higher the value of the platform token, forming a closed loop.

2. Ecological Participation Certificate: Becoming "Product Tickets"

● Staking BGB / BNB allows participation in products like Launchpad and Launchpool;

● Locking platform tokens can enjoy higher wealth management rates, priority qualifications, and whitelist access;

Users are not "holding to speculate," but "must hold to participate in the ecosystem," making platform tokens part of the ecological access mechanism.

3. On-Chain Governance Asset: Transitioning from Platform to Chain

● BNB has participated in on-chain governance proposals, gas payments, and staking mining;

● BGB supports on-chain staking in Bitget Wallet and plans to expand into DAO, NFT voting, and other functions;

● OKB has also proposed on-chain governance plans, but they have not yet been fully implemented.

Platform tokens are attempting to complete the "value breakout" from internal CeFi incentives to external DeFi empowerment, becoming benchmark assets for ecological governance.

Currently, BNB is between stages 2.5 and 3, BGB is transitioning from stage 2 to stage 3, while OKB remains between 1.5 and 2.

Through the previous comparisons of deflationary mechanisms, supply structures, usage scenarios, platform support, and market performance, it can be seen that although platform tokens belong to the same category, the underlying logic has gradually differentiated into two types:

● One type consists of platform tokens with clear mechanisms, tightened structures, and positive platform growth, such as BGB and BNB;

● The other type consists of platform tokens with vague mechanisms, unclear circulation, and weak participation, lacking long-term value support.

Based on current data, we can reclassify the long-term value potential of mainstream platform tokens from the following core dimensions:

The comparison shows:

● If users value long-term deflationary pressure + clear usage closed loops + support from growing platforms, BGB is currently the most structurally complete and highest potential "new utility platform token."

● If stability and safety margins are more important, BNB remains the asset with the strongest fundamental support in the crypto industry.

● OKB may have short-term opportunities, but it lacks structural clarity and sustainable ecological binding, requiring higher speculative tolerance and timing ability for holding.

So, which users should pay attention to platform tokens? In what scenarios should they consider allocation?

● For users who frequently participate in exchange products and have a habit of using Launchpad, BGB/BNB has high participation frequency and can yield actual benefits;

● For mid-term holders looking for "undervalued + long-term potential," BGB has an early-stage structure and stronger elasticity;

● For those who prefer swing trading and accept short-term speculation, they can pay attention to platform tokens like OKB.

The next round of value reassessment for platform tokens will no longer rely on stories but on actual performance. Truly valuable platform tokens in the long term must excel simultaneously in four areas: clear mechanisms, clean supply, real-world scenarios, and continuous platform expansion.

Future competition will not just be about "who can rise," but "who can continue to rise."

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。