Real (Net) Inflation Rate

This takes net issuance, annualizes it, and expresses it as a percentage of circulating supply. Where a protocol destroys tokens at a rate exceeding creation, the figure is negative and supply is contracting over the window measured. It is the more complete of the two inflation figures on this site because it accounts for both directions of supply change, and it is the one to use when comparing assets with materially different burn mechanisms.

How it is computed

((tokens created per day - tokens destroyed per day) x 365) / circulating supply x 100

Where it misleads

A negative reading is the arithmetic of one window and not a durable property: burn mechanisms tied to blockspace demand fall away when demand falls, and the sign reverses without any change to the protocol. Comparing a net rate for one asset against a gross rate for another is a common and material error, because providers publish both under similar labels and rarely state which they mean. The measure excludes tokens that already exist but are locked, so real transferable supply can expand through unlocks while this rate reads low or negative. Both components depend on provider conventions about vesting releases and burn-address balances, so two sources can disagree on the sign.

The equity comparison, and why it fails

Net dilution after buybacks. The analogy fails because equity issuance and repurchase are authorized corporate actions settled in external currency and disclosed in filings, whereas issuance and burns here are automatic code behavior funded by users' transaction fees, with no disclosure regime and no claim attaching to the result.

Reading a high or a low value

A positive percentage means supply is growing after burns; a negative percentage means it is contracting over the window measured. The sign depends on the window chosen wherever burns are driven by network activity.