I do agree with your view here. Burning or Not is not even the real issue. I personally see it as a litmus test to show the will of the DAO and also demonstrate the teams commitment to Community led governance.
Something to think on:
Before migration, LSK price was at $2 (average), now it is at $0.5
I’d argue that the net $$ available to support growth initiatives would have been at least 4X compared to what we have now (50M lsk tokens pre-migration is 2x of 100M today)
This is directly tied to token holders and their actions since then. I will argue that if the team was doing everything right and actually taking community feedback seriously, holders would have kept holding and new ones will join (potentially keeping the price stable thus increasing the net $$ available for initiatives). for instance the 3.6m allocated for season 1 could have easily been over $7m (@ 1 $lsk = $2), but right now all we have is $1.8m
If we don’t burn, we must ramp up operations to boost investor trust and attract new holders, otherwise that 100M will be worth nothing by 2026. Actually she should do this, and still burn 
I would vote to burn, but burning alone will not solve it. we must attract new investors (even as we support builders in EM).
My reason?
While we are supporting builders in EM, we are doing almost nothing to boost prices. If prices keep dropping investors will suffer, but more important than that, we will run out of funds to keep supporting builders in EM .
It’s a long term game the team is playing here, but without liquidity (denominated in $$ not LSK), we might run out of funds before any real results is recorded in EMs. Note that Lisk is for-profit, not a charity.
so YES!!
Support EM but dont forget that you need money to sustain that support! 