(Note that I no longer have a ZIP editor hat, magic or not 
) Oficially the Foundation will still entertain proposals with some concept of burn; as @tromer suggested it matters a great deal who does the burning. If itās a single party doing so that āprovides essential managerial efforts that affect the success of the enterpriseā thatās definitely a non-starter for the risks @joshs mentioned. But otherwise, our view mirrorās @tromerās here:
Conversely, my understanding is that if the burning/deferral is done programmatically by consensus rules, or left to market forces and decentralized control by a loose set of unaffiliated parties (e.g., miners) then it does not support the āReliance on the Efforts of Othersā test.
All that being said, from my personal (non-official-Foundation) perspective as a result of our discussion @mistfpga earlier in my proposal thread I tend to think burning should be avoided if possible as there are numerous, potentially much more effective ways for the community to spend those funds (e.g. in my proposal instead of burning coins theyād be diverted to the pool for ZF Grants).