Of course it is necessary to burn tokens if their project is not sold out, but we have to ask the team to have specific evidence, if the good team they will tell us all, and if the project is bad they cried but tokens that were not sold out are still there for what purpose, only coughing will know.
They should provide evidence that is accessible to everyone, prior to the token sale, its already indicated that any unsold tokens should be burn so the total supply will be just the total sold tokens which I think the right thing to do. Developers are selling a lot of tokens to cope up the demand in the market but since its not guaranteed that all offered tokens for sell be sold out, that's where the burning of coins happened. 
Topic: burning token (Read 787 times)
I often read and heard about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project was finished, I also knew that by burning the rest of the token was a strategy so the price of the token didn't fall, but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime? is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?
You have discussed a beautiful topic. Because of this, coins cannot be sustained in the market. And ordinary investors lose their capital. That extra token must be destroyed. Burning of token usually help in reducing the total supply of such token and when the supply is reduced and demand is high it leads to increase in value of token. so i may not be wrong to say that burning of token helps in increasing its value.
This rule only applies if the token has at least some value. If this token is of no value you can burn them all.
Of course it is necessary to burn tokens if their project is not sold out, but we have to ask the team to have specific evidence, if the good team they will tell us all, and if the project is bad they cried but tokens that were not sold out are still there for what purpose, only coughing will know.
It's only right for the team to burn unsold tokens that way the value of the tokens will not fall except there's a plan of future tokensale.
Burning tokens are not the solution for pumping up the price of the tokens once bounty hunters sell all there tokens it will be automatically dump the price of it. sometimes don't expect it will happened.
Burning of token usually help in reducing the total supply of such token and when the supply is reduced and demand is high it leads to increase in value of token. so i may not be wrong to say that burning of token helps in increasing its value.
This rule only applies if the token has at least some value. If this token is of no value you can burn them all. 
Burning of token usually help in reducing the total supply of such token and when the supply is reduced and demand is high it leads to increase in value of token. so i may not be wrong to say that burning of token helps in increasing its value.
Isn't it the demand will be going back again to the result of the development progress that has been done by the team? As you can see that so many projects have been buring their total token supply and they are not getting a huge demand right now. stellar is the right example about that could be a failed strategy.Burning of token usually help in reducing the total supply of such token and when the supply is reduced and demand is high it leads to increase in value of token. so i may not be wrong to say that burning of token helps in increasing its value.
Isn't it the demand will be going back again to the result of the development progress that has been done by the team? As you can see that so many projects have been buring their total token supply and they are not getting a huge demand right now. stellar is the right example about that could be a failed strategy.Still the development and progress coming from the team that will lead to high demand, even the tokens will continue to be burned but if there's nothing from the investors interest it will bring nothing to the project. We do see a lot of people who are trying to figure which project to support and they're not looking for burning supplies alone but for real usages.
Burning of token usually help in reducing the total supply of such token and when the supply is reduced and demand is high it leads to increase in value of token. so i may not be wrong to say that burning of token helps in increasing its value.
Isn't it the demand will be going back again to the result of the development progress that has been done by the team? As you can see that so many projects have been buring their total token supply and they are not getting a huge demand right now. stellar is the right example about that could be a failed strategy. 
I often read and heard about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project was finished, I also knew that by burning the rest of the token was a strategy so the price of the token didn't fall, but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime? is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?
there are no official rules or statements about it. there are even tokens that are not burned forever after the ico is finished and the team will only say "the project failed" so that there will never be a burning token. 
So far that i know about burning tokens is to keep to price stable. The unslod tokens will burnes due to maintain prce of that tokens. The higher the supply, the lower the lower the price while the higher the demand the higher the price.
burning token is not only to stabilize the price of coins at the exchange, burn tokens will also make the price of tokens expensive and token coins will be limited and it will be very difficult to get them, take advantage of the burning moment in the token or coin as best as possible to be able to get a lot of profit. 
So far that i know about burning tokens is to keep to price stable. The unslod tokens will burnes due to maintain prce of that tokens. The higher the supply, the lower the lower the price while the higher the demand the higher the price.
During ICO where total supply is so huge and its always been good to look at if unsold tokens would be burned rather than keeping the big portion of it in side of the team.
This would removed out the possible manipulation into their side yet anyone can dump out if they do have the sufficient supply more than into its investors.
If burning would happen after the ICO or for how many months or years after the launch of said coin then its also good yet it will cut off the supply and if the demand is constant then
expect for the price to rise.
This would removed out the possible manipulation into their side yet anyone can dump out if they do have the sufficient supply more than into its investors.
If burning would happen after the ICO or for how many months or years after the launch of said coin then its also good yet it will cut off the supply and if the demand is constant then
expect for the price to rise.
I often read and heard about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project was finished, I also knew that by burning the rest of the token was a strategy so the price of the token didn't fall, but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime? is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?
It is in need to be done because burning of unsold tokens was also part of the project's outline for the whole run being planned by the team. Burning of unsold tokens is done to control the number of circulating tokens which is successfully being sold when the sale was aired and is also a way for the value of the tokens not to fall due to excess supply of the tokens in the market which is not being used since it was unsold during the sale. But burning of tokens can be also delayed after the project has been done if the team have decided to get into the phase two of the project and do the second wide sale of the tokens for an improve plan of the project and make it accessible again for more potential investors to get into their project.
It's only right for the team to burn unsold tokens that way the value of the tokens will not fall except there's a plan of future tokensale.
I often read and heard about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project was finished, I also knew that by burning the rest of the token was a strategy so the price of the token didn't fall, but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime? is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?
Its not compulsory to burn tokens left after ICO sales. It's just a strategy introduced to attract customers who will now have the impression that the token circulation will be low and thus translate to high price (according to supply and demand laws). That not withstanding, some projects also lock up such tokens for future marketing and promotion. Which is no big deal
Many projects now focus on this as they do not want to have all the unsold tokens in their hands as community members will think that they will dump those tokens thus the trust will be lost. I also like projects like Binance and Eureka Network because not only they burn early on, they also have buy back and burn policies in place, or burning regularly policies, which help to actually reduce the supply over time and thus make the coin or token deflationary. This kind of practice also adds an added value and is primarily attractive to holders and long term investors because if the projects are successful like Binance, the value of the token or coin can really increase dramatically, even in slow or bearish market.
Actually, the team decides what to do with unsold tokens. If they want to keep the price of the token stable, the best option is to burn all unsold tokens, but in case the team is greedy, they might use these tokens to increase their own allocations.
If the team dev didnt burn the tokens like they promises then it proved the project might be scam or useless projecs. Always follow the projects tha delivered their promises in time and do what ever they promises to investors. Burning tokens is the best because it can reduce total amounts supply and make the price of the token goes up also.
I often read and heard about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project was finished, I also knew that by burning the rest of the token was a strategy so the price of the token didn't fall, but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime? is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?
Its a good idea to burn tokens that aren't sold in ICO but at the same time it depends on the max supply of the token, if its in billions burning will be better, not all projects prefer this but few ones who did have good end results Jump to: