100 years ago, you could have just set the money on fire and had a pretty similar net effect (reduce the money supply, increase the value of the remaining money for everyone else). There are some caveats. Money burning benefits aren't distributed evenly - rich people gain more than poor people since they have more of the remaining money. You also have to already have at least some money to benefit from it.

Still, it's possible the low overhead and fraud risks of burning money compared to distributing it might make it a more cost effective way to equitably distribute the $8 billion globally than any other route.

Modern finance is unfortunately more complicated. Burning money doesn't necessarily have any impact on the value of money.