Topic: 2 token ICO or 1 token ICO? - page 2. (Read 343 times)

Divisions of tokens doesn't really matter. What matters most in creation of tokens is the legality of your project and your sincerity to the public which you are encouraging to invest to your platform.

Not many care if it's 2 token or 1 token as they just care about making profit. But each project should come up with one token as multiple tokens cause confusion which sometimes causes people to buy the first token when they actually wanted the second of the project. It should be simple and straightforward.

Maybe what you say is true it's better to use one token for ico enough so that in the future it doesn't have a bad impact on ongoing sales

One token is better because it can be cause some problem to the investors and people who want to support their ICO and project. And one token in ICO is enough for me so that I can focus where or what should I buy. Then I try to look up some 2 token in their ICO project it have bad effect on their project and sale.

One token seems like a better choice, as two tokens can create confusion. Plus many investors dump their security token after ICO for a easy profit. So one token system can prevent that.

For ease of use. 1 token will do. Don't design so complicated. User experience is most important. People want to use your token services simply and quickly.

Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.
[/quote]

That is exactly the purpose suggested.  The security token would be to invest in the ICO and company.  The utility token would be only used to pay for the service.  We have a legitimate service and will have a payment processor so that everyone can use the utility tokens to pay for the service.  That is why I believe our advisors suggested the two tokens.  The security token will come out first and then within a few months when the processor is set up and there are service centers in place the utility token will be released. We do have a MVP right now.  This way they can still keep the security token as an investment and not have to use it for the service.   

I keep going back and forth on which way to go which is why I asked the question on the forum.
[/quote]

You should also understand the implications of issuing security tokens. Securities are like shares bought, implying part stakes in the company. I hope you have satisfied the requirements of the SEC, because they'll sure come after you especially of the ICO is open to residents of the US.

While this is a rather harsh response, it's the honest truth. Like no one cares the number of token types so as long as the prices appreciates in the marketplace upon listing on the exchanges. A project called 'Smarter Than Crypto' has two tokens, STCR and STC, I honestly don't care if they have a third, I want the tokens to be profitable.

These are very interesting thoughts about the division of tokens into two different assets. But now in the cryptocurrency world there are too many scammers and a huge number of completely illiterate people. It seems to me to start, you need to improve the literacy and safety of people in crypto, and only then try to complicate the system.

Thanks for the examples.  I can see that it is becoming more common place.

[/quote]
Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.
[/quote]

That is exactly the purpose suggested.  The security token would be to invest in the ICO and company.  The utility token would be only used to pay for the service.  We have a legitimate service and will have a payment processor so that everyone can use the utility tokens to pay for the service.  That is why I believe our advisors suggested the two tokens.  The security token will come out first and then within a few months when the processor is set up and there are service centers in place the utility token will be released. We do have a MVP right now.  This way they can still keep the security token as an investment and not have to use it for the service.   

I keep going back and forth on which way to go which is why I asked the question on the forum.

I think 2 tokens are better for project and platform, 1 for security as IPO, 1 for blockchain payment.
ALEhub, Altcoinstalks, and new projects use double-token-system
Organicco uses it too: ORC and easypayer: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annicoairdrop-organicco-green-tech-proven-technology-3379079

Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.

I think one token. With 2 tokens, security and utility you might create confusion

It's too complicated. The bulk monitors the price and profitability. It is desirable to simplify everything.

Yea, the one token would be better for investors. People don't like difficult schemes. They want simple profit..)

I think that each project should come up with one token, multiple tokens create confusion and sometimes people wrongly buy the first token while they wanted to buy the second token of the project, i think things should be simple and straight forward.

I think everyone doesn't care. People want to make money and they do not care about the division of tokens. The main thing is that the token increases in price.

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

UPDATE NOTE: I want to clarify from the above post. We actually are not going to actually launch two tokens at the ICO.  We are thinking of launching ONE security token at the actual ICO.  Then 3 to 6 months later, once some of our brick and mortar service centers are open and running we will launch a utility token to be used for the payment of the service.  So you now have a security token for investment and utility token for the service centers so you do not have to give up your investment token.