Can I claim NOT after an unclaimed allocation has actually been burned?

The NOT units destroyed in an unclaimed-allocation burn no longer exist as claimable tokens. This does not determine eligibility for a separate distribution or establish a current claim deadline. Any later allocation has its own balance and conditions; it cannot make the original destroyed units available again.

When does an expired TON Connect request stop a burn from being submitted?

A wallet must reject a TON Connect transaction request that has passed its validity deadline. That deadline limits the request, without undoing a burn that already executed on-chain. An expired prompt does not prove that an earlier submission failed, so distinguish the request's expiry from the recorded outcome of any transaction.

Why can an unsuccessful NOT burn still consume Toncoin?

A burn attempt that reaches TON can incur execution fees even if it never removes NOT from supply. Fees cover computation and message handling, so failure does not necessarily erase costs already incurred. The transaction's recorded charges describe network work; a fee deduction alone does not prove that the token burn succeeded.

Does a Telegram Stars payment prove that NOT was burned?

A Telegram Stars payment alone does not establish that a NOT burn completed. Stars pay for digital goods and services inside Telegram Mini Apps. A historical Notcoin test proposed a link between Stars and burning, but the payment record and completed NOT removal establish different events. The specific campaign determines any relationship between them.

Will a NOT burn also destroy other tokens in my wallet?

A burn operation targeting genuine NOT affects that token's selected balance and supply. Other tokens have separate identities and balances, even when the same wallet controls them. A request containing additional messages can include other actions, so its full contents matter; the NOT burn label does not describe every action in that request.

Is an exchange balance enough to authorize a personal NOT burn?

An exchange account balance does not give you signing control over the provider's on-chain wallet. A personal burn needs authorization from a wallet controlling the NOT balance and support for its burn operation. Your account access permits actions that the provider supports; a normal withdrawal moves tokens without establishing supply removal.

What makes a NOT donation different from a completed burn?

On-chain receipt of a NOT donation establishes a transfer to the collection wallet. Supply removal requires the collected tokens to undergo the actual burn operation. The donation record and burn record establish different outcomes. A campaign's handling and timing govern when collection leads to removal, if its terms provide for burning.

Notcoin burn readiness and final supply removal

Notcoin burn permanently removes NOT from its recorded supply when the jetton burn operation completes on the TON blockchain. Wallet approval authorizes a request; it does not prove that the burn finished. Completion requires successful execution for the genuine NOT token and the corresponding supply reduction. Until those records agree, removal of the selected tokens remains unconfirmed.

Before a first burn, establish which NOT balance the request affects and what the interface can demonstrate. Leaving a request unsigned gives you a reversible stopping point. Signing and submitting it introduces an irreversible outcome if the burn succeeds.

The NOT balance and supply record needed before authorization

A personal burn starts with control of a genuine NOT balance and an interface that supports that token's burn operation. Before authorizing anything, a direct burn request must target the signing wallet's NOT jetton wallet contract under the genuine NOT master, and the displayed amount must use the same token units as the amount that the operation removes. Jetton metadata supplies the name, ticker and image that a wallet displays. Anyone can copy those fields when creating another token, so display labels alone cannot establish the NOT contract.

Control of the selected balance

Access to Telegram or a project app does not itself establish signing control over tokens. The amount that the request removes must fit the available NOT balance. Native funds cover a different purpose, the network's execution cost. A burn interface must support the intended NOT contract; a connection to a wallet does not establish that support.

A supply record that matches the operation

The supply record must belong to that same token master. A figure for another asset, a game-point balance or an exchange account's internal ledger does not measure the NOT supply that the burn changes. Record the NOT master's supply before submission, then compare its decrease with the selected amount using the same display precision.

Project burns draw from defined allocations

Notcoin's project-level burns have drawn on unclaimed allocations, Explore campaign pools and voluntary contributions. These events use the balances designated for those burns. They do not automatically select tokens from every holder's wallet.

Unclaimed clicker allocations

Historical burns included roughly 210 million NOT from unclaimed clicker allocations. That relates to the original distribution after the tapping phase, which ended in April 2024. It does not establish a current claim deadline. A later app balance should not be treated as part of that allocation without the campaign's terms.

Explore pools and burn contributions

Explore's announced policy committed 10% of each pool to burning. The share describes a campaign pool, not a universal transfer tax or the fraction a personal wallet must destroy. Voluntary burn contributions are another source of tokens for removal. A donation and the eventual burn therefore have different completion records.

Contract execution determines when removal becomes final

NOT is a TON jetton, a fungible token whose balance and supply live in token contracts.

A jetton master contract tracks total supply, while individual jetton wallet contracts store owners' token balances. The jetton master reduces total supply when it accepts a valid burn notification from the holder's jetton wallet. An ordinary transfer updates balances without that supply reduction.

TON Connect carries requests between an app and a signing wallet. It lets the app request wallet actions without obtaining private keys. Approval concerns the request presented to that wallet. The app can then show a submission result before you have established the final outcome at the token contracts.

An outgoing message can lead to further contract processing. TON's transaction interface distinguishes the broadcast message from execution at recipient contracts, where a message can fail or bounce. The initial wallet transaction therefore cannot, by itself, prove every downstream result in a burn.

Successful execution makes destruction permanent. The owner cannot use a fresh signature to restore the units that the burn removed. Any later receipt of NOT would involve a separate transfer or allocation, without reversing the original burn.

An unsigned NOT burn request leaves room to stop

Begin by reviewing the unsigned NOT burn request; proof of removal becomes available only after the token contracts complete the burn. It should name the intended token and amount while leaving the wallet's signing decision in your control.

A direct burn request targets the signing wallet's jetton wallet contract for genuine NOT.
The requested NOT amount stays within the available balance.
The interface identifies a burn operation rather than an ordinary transfer.
The wallet can fund the stated execution costs, or the interface explicitly covers that burn.
The on-chain record can show the burn outcome and its supply effect.

Signing the matched request permits submission of the burn to TON. Successful execution should remove the selected NOT units from supply. An approval screen or outgoing transaction without a resolved burn result shows authorization or submission; the supply change that you expect is still unconfirmed.

Leave the request unsigned if the operation or token differs from the intended burn. After submission, pause further action while an outcome remains unclear. Sending another request can create another burn. Neither closing the app nor disconnecting the session reverses a completed operation.

Continue only after the trace confirms the intended burn and the matching supply reduction. Keep the amount, token contract and transaction record together so that the proof describes the same operation that you authorized.

Holding and transfers preserve different choices

Burning fits an intention to destroy selected NOT units and reduce recorded supply. Holding preserves control of those units, while an ordinary transfer changes their owner without reducing total supply. A transfer to an address described as a burn address may instead make tokens inaccessible while leaving recorded supply unchanged. Losing access to a balance and reducing supply have different completion evidence, even when an interface calls both actions burning.

Execution costs remain separate from the NOT destroyed

A standard self-funded burn needs Toncoin for network costs in addition to the NOT selected for destruction. Computation and message handling determine those costs; the amount burned is a separate token quantity. An interface may also impose its own charge. Sponsorship must cover the actual burn operation to remove the need for the wallet to fund execution. A relayer's support for a token transfer does not establish support for burning that token.

Raw amounts and concurrent burns complicate supply comparisons

Supply confirmation becomes misleading when the displayed balance and the contract record use different units, or when unrelated burns occur between observations.

Display precision

A raw jetton amount is an integer count of smallest token units. The decimals field in the token's metadata sets the display scale; the standard uses 9 when that field is absent. The displayed amount equals the raw integer amount divided by 10 raised to the token's decimals value. Apply the same scale when comparing the requested amount with a recorded supply decrease.

Other removals during the same interval

A master contract's supply figure aggregates activity for that token. If other holders burn NOT between the earlier and later observations, the total decrease can exceed the amount in one request, so attribute that request's removal through its own trace before comparing the aggregate supply snapshots. Refresh timing can also separate what the wallet displays from the current contract state.

Supply reduction leaves market value unsettled

A completed burn makes the destroyed units unavailable, while demand and liquidity continue to affect NOT trading. It creates no automatic payout to remaining holders. A burn announcement alone cannot establish the price at which anyone will trade. Campaign rewards and destroyed tokens also describe different outcomes, even when both amounts carry the NOT ticker. An Explore update reported 163 million NOT earned by explorers since the previous burn event, while its separate removal figure measured the tokens destroyed by the associated burn: approximately 16 million NOT.

View image file

Notcoin burn: reader questions

Can I claim NOT after an unclaimed allocation has actually been burned?: The NOT units destroyed in an unclaimed-allocation burn no longer exist as claimable tokens. This does not determine eligibility for a separate distribution or establish a current claim deadline. Any later allocation has its own balance and conditions; it cannot make the original destroyed units available again.
When does an expired TON Connect request stop a burn from being submitted?: A wallet must reject a TON Connect transaction request that has passed its validity deadline. That deadline limits the request, without undoing a burn that already executed on-chain. An expired prompt does not prove that an earlier submission failed, so distinguish the request's expiry from the recorded outcome of any transaction.
Why can an unsuccessful NOT burn still consume Toncoin?: A burn attempt that reaches TON can incur execution fees even if it never removes NOT from supply. Fees cover computation and message handling, so failure does not necessarily erase costs already incurred. The transaction's recorded charges describe network work; a fee deduction alone does not prove that the token burn succeeded.
Does a Telegram Stars payment prove that NOT was burned?: A Telegram Stars payment alone does not establish that a NOT burn completed. Stars pay for digital goods and services inside Telegram Mini Apps. A historical Notcoin test proposed a link between Stars and burning, but the payment record and completed NOT removal establish different events. The specific campaign determines any relationship between them.
Will a NOT burn also destroy other tokens in my wallet?: A burn operation targeting genuine NOT affects that token's selected balance and supply. Other tokens have separate identities and balances, even when the same wallet controls them. A request containing additional messages can include other actions, so its full contents matter; the NOT burn label does not describe every action in that request.
Is an exchange balance enough to authorize a personal NOT burn?: An exchange account balance does not give you signing control over the provider's on-chain wallet. A personal burn needs authorization from a wallet controlling the NOT balance and support for its burn operation. Your account access permits actions that the provider supports; a normal withdrawal moves tokens without establishing supply removal.
What makes a NOT donation different from a completed burn?: On-chain receipt of a NOT donation establishes a transfer to the collection wallet. Supply removal requires the collected tokens to undergo the actual burn operation. The donation record and burn record establish different outcomes. A campaign's handling and timing govern when collection leads to removal, if its terms provide for burning.

Updated: 12 Oct 2026