A comprehensive comparison of BNB, BGB, and OKB: whose home ground will it be in the next round?

Author: OneShotBug

Since the last cycle, platform tokens are no longer just "fee discount coupons." From burn mechanisms, revenue 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, replaced by a focus on more fundamental factors such as whether the deflationary mechanism is real and effective, whether the use cases are continuously active, and whether the platform's growth is healthy.

Recently, Binance and Bitget announced the completion of their burn plans. BNB's 31st burn saw approximately 1.579 million tokens destroyed, accounting for about 1.1% of the total supply; while BGB's first quarterly burn involved 30 million tokens, accounting for about 2.5% of the total supply. The platform token race is shifting 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 implementation performance of current mainstream platform tokens across the following core dimensions:

● Actual strength of the deflationary mechanism

● Total supply structure and release risks

● Actual use cases 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 Burning? Who is Still Telling Stories?

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

● Is the burn frequency stable?

● Is the burn ratio sufficiently impactful?

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

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

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

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

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

This indicates that in terms of the "relative pressure" of burn 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 action 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 burns is not only a point of mechanism execution but may also be the starting point for "structural value appreciation."

Comparison Comments:

● BNB has a relatively mature deflationary mechanism, adopting a dual-track model of BEP-95 automatic burns + quarterly manual burns, with a clear rhythm and stable mechanism. The latest quarterly burn amount reached $916 million, making its deflationary execution capability one of the strongest among mainstream platform tokens. However, its single round burn 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." Its first quarterly burn reached a 2.5% ratio; although the burn 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 actions have a more significant marginal impact on price, typical of high-growth platform tokens.

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

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

To assess a platform token's deflationary potential, one must not only look at the burn ratio but also 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 Comments:

● Although BNB has a target total supply of 200 million and continues to reduce supply through an automatic burn mechanism, there are still a small number of 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 burned 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 shocks or distribution risks.

● OKB's supply structure has some uncertainty, 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 effects can be sustained long-term.

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

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

The more use cases a platform token has, the theoretically stronger its value support. However, in reality, "available" does not equal "commonly used," and "nominal support" does not equal "users are truly 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-staking-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) dimensions:

Comparison Comments:

● 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 use cases have rapidly expanded in recent years, frequently used not only in Bitget's core products (such as Launchpool, Launchpad, PoolX) but also binding with 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-staking-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 relatively slow, resulting in 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. Meanwhile, BGB provides gas payment, on-chain staking, and other functions within the Bitget Wallet ecosystem, with 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, reinforcing its potential as an "ecosystem central asset."

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

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

Image data source: CoinGecko, April 14, 2025

The value of platform tokens ultimately boils down to "platform credit." The deflationary mechanism determines scarcity, while use cases determine demand strength, but the final valuation anchor still depends on the actual scale, ecological layout, and development trend 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, rather than conceptual stimulation.

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

Next, based on TokenInsight's “Crypto Exchange 2024 Annual Report”, we will compare and analyze the development status of these three exchanges in 2024:

● Binance: Market leader, but growth rate slowing. As the most influential crypto exchange globally, Binance remains the top in spot, derivatives, and user volume. As of 2024, its spot trading volume accounts for 48.2%, indicating that its platform token BNB has a strong user coverage and ecological foundation. However, Binance's annual total market share has dropped 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 leap speed. Bitget has been the standout "second-tier leader" over the past year. By 2024, its spot market share grew by 8.06%, with an overall market share increase of 5.2 percentage points, and its derivatives share is approaching 12%. Mainstream tokens like BTC and ETH are actively traded, with a total daily trading volume exceeding $3.6 billion. Notably, Bitget's growth is not reliant on a single breakout point but is advancing across multiple areas such as contracts, copy trading, wealth management, and wallet ecosystems, gradually forming a three-in-one 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 traditionally strong platform, particularly maintaining a certain market presence in derivatives (15% share). However, its spot share has shown passivity under the impact of emerging platforms, with its annual market share dropping from 16.6% to 11.8%, and liquidity indicators for BTC/ETH are also lower than Bitget. 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 limits its valuation ceiling.

The strength of the platform is the underlying anchor of the value of platform tokens. 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 valuation discount phase of a "high-growth platform token," with realistic soil for repricing.

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

The structure and mechanisms of platform tokens are undoubtedly important, but how the market perceives them ultimately comes 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 Comments:

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

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

● OKB's market value and trading volume are relatively neutral, lacking obvious 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, most platform tokens served very simple roles—discounting fees, participating 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 cycles.

However, since 2021, especially with leading platforms building their own ecosystems and promoting on-chain expansion, platform tokens have gradually taken on three deeper roles:

1. Deflation Anchor: Binding Platform Business Growth

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

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

This means: the richer the use cases → the more burns → the higher the platform token value, forming a closed loop.

2. Ecological Participation Certificate: Becoming "Product Tickets"

● Staking BGB / BNB allows participation in products like Launchpad, Launchpool, etc.;

● 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: 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, with plans to expand into DAO and NFT voting 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, use cases, platform support power, 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 user participation, lacking long-term value support.

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

From the comparison, it can be seen that:

● If users value long-term deflationary pressure + clear usage closed loop + support from growing platforms, BGB is currently the most complete structure and has the greatest potential space as a "new practical 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 are suitable for focusing on platform tokens? In what scenarios can 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's structure is relatively early-stage, with stronger elasticity;

● For those who prefer swing trading and accept short-term speculation, platform tokens like OKB can be considered.

The next round of value reassessment for platform tokens will no longer rely on stories but on execution. Truly valuable platform tokens will certainly outperform on these four lines: clear mechanisms, clean supply, real scenarios, and continuous platform expansion.

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