While I agree with the opinion of this thread that it's very unlikely to be banned, I think people are looking at it from the wrong perspective. They are comparing it to recent bans like Pod and Cruise which were engine cards. It doesn't do anything similar to those cards or Deathrite so why would it get banned?

Of course there is another kind of card that gets banned for another reason, enablers. Basically when a certain kind of deck reaches a critical mass of redundancy, it can be constrictive on design space as every similar card only makes the deck stronger. I don't think wizards ever intended a strategy like Burn to be as strong as it is. It was always supposed to be a metagame deck as opposed to a deck people meta against.

So what comparable do we have? I think the most similar are seething song and rite of flame. They pushed storm a little too hard, so they banned them knowing storm would exist still but a vit weaker, as it had fallback options. Burn has no shortage of fallback options so it's not inconceivable that if it ever gets too strong that some burn specific cards (not Lightning Bolt) get axed. Ideally you want a powerful card that doesn't go in other decks. Goblin Guide and Eidolon probably fit the bill and people are less attached to Eidolon than Guide, so it's probably first into go if Burn ever needs a ban.

I'm not saying it's going to happen, but newer, better burn cards get printed too frequently, it seems (Boris charm, Eidolon, Swiftspear, and Command all on the past 2.5 years.). I could see in another few years them having to nwef burn a bit, thing is it will happen because it got other good cards, so the deck will unfortunately probably always exist.