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?
in fact it must be done because not burning unsold tokens will have a negative impact on in the eyes of investors, Obviously the project will be quiet in the market so I think burning the unsold tokens is an obligation 
Topic: burning token - page 4. (Read 787 times)
Burning of token is a good strategy actually that many projects have been using that yield awesome results, it makes the token to be relatively scarce and price will not be able to dump anyhow.
If a team failed to burn the left over tokens as stated/promised them such team is not a reliable one. This is a team that does not have the community members at heart. And in this case, the community members should be very careful in the team.
If a team failed to burn the left over tokens as stated/promised them such team is not a reliable one. This is a team that does not have the community members at heart. And in this case, the community members should be very careful in the team.
Dishonesty is a crime but because we are in decentralized place dishonesty sometimes are not intentional where uncontrollable and unforseen obstacles could happen unexpectedly. Projects are not the same dishonest, some are really honest to their promises they make it to happen.
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?
I guess they might add the token if they are in an exchange project, they can put it to the liquidity pool in order to maximize the volume of the token that can be used in the entire project.
Burning excess tokens will help to reduce the total circulation of the token thereby aiding improvement in the value of the coin.
Burning some of their tokens depends on the strategy of the team and most of them were written on their roadmap. You will be able to track those if they fulfill their promise by looking on their contract on the blockchain. Burning tokens was very effective on 2017 where the price went up a price but if you will ask most of the investors, burning tokens nowadays no longer have that impact or may take effect when the bull run starts.
developers actually have two choice with their unsold tokens.first one usually developers team will burn this token and most of investors agree with this action.and another choice was use it as airdrop for token holder.this way very effective to make investors hold their tokens,so price will be stable. 
but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime?
It wasn't a crime if the devs will never burn tokens for that specific token that they have been developing. is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?
No, there's no requirement actually everyone can burn their tokens by just sending to a genesis address or address that has no owner.
Burning some of their tokens depends on the strategy of the team and most of them were written on their roadmap. You will be able to track those if they fulfill their promise by looking on their contract on the blockchain. Burning tokens was very effective on 2017 where the price went up a price but if you will ask most of the investors, burning tokens nowadays no longer have that impact or may take effect when the bull run starts.
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?
Would not say its a crime , but i would not trust the project further after that . There is projects that keep changing whitepaper after ICO , usually i just don't support projects that does not follow roadmap or missing deadlines quite often
It is a general belief that unsold tokens are burnt but that is the prerogative of the Dev Team. That is to maintain a certain circulating volume of the token in the market. But I have reservations, because there is no certificate to show that the tokens are actually burnt. there is no independent erification report when the tokens are burnt. Again, the burning do not guarantee the success of the token price in the market.
There is no requirement and there is no rule binding on the project team, to burn their tokens. They are to decide if they want to burn or not, irrespective of their total or maximum supply.
In that case, it is now left for the investor if he wants to invest in such project or not.
Although, token burn sometimes can contribute to the price surge of such project, but there are some projects with very large supply, yet they do not burn,but will tell you that the tokens will be used for the development of their platform or in the ecosystem.
In that case, it is now left for the investor if he wants to invest in such project or not.
Although, token burn sometimes can contribute to the price surge of such project, but there are some projects with very large supply, yet they do not burn,but will tell you that the tokens will be used for the development of their platform or in the ecosystem.
burn is the way that the purpose of the token to the balance value. When the sale is not completely exhausted then the anticipation its worth developers will fall burn token to the tokens they travel better and appropriate estimates. many are doing this and not a crime.
I think burning the tokens creates a little bit of scarcity and increase demand. If large amounts of token are left in the hands of developers they would have a lot to dump in the market thereby making the token lose value.
So burning some tokens is a kind of assurance to investors that they won't be dumped or devalued in the future.
I think you can also create thesame effect if Parts of the tokens are locked for a long period of time instead of the burning.
So burning some tokens is a kind of assurance to investors that they won't be dumped or devalued in the future.
I think you can also create thesame effect if Parts of the tokens are locked for a long period of time instead of the burning.
I don't think it was the crime if the dev have not burn the token, but I am sure if they kept the token and didn't burn it, all the investors will lost the faith in this project, and I saw many time the token will dump in same time.
I think that must be done. In my opinion it's a good strategy, so the remaining unsold tokens do not become an investor's question. If it is not done, the project team might commit a crime with the rest of the token.
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 is no crime on that if it's stated in the whitepaper, the team are just being transparent. When burning, the supply will only decrease but the project will continue, and in fact it could give favor to investors, and it's going to be attractive.
There is no such requirement and it is not necessarily the best option to help build value in a new coin. One of last year's ICO projects that I took part with decided to use their unsold coins to help integrate new projects on to their platform, so keeping the max coins supply constant and adding value through extra future usage and growth.
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?
Every team in every project have different strategy and burning token is one of that. Sometimes team doing if they see that there's no increasing in that token no one is buying. But I think burning unsold token is good for the every will use that token so all will be benefited.
It's not a requirement at all. It's just that the total supply of a token matters to everyone because it can either affect price positively or negatively. So to reduce the supply of a coin and assure the people that the developers are not out to dump on them, they burn tokens.
legendary
Activity: 3010
Merit: 1028
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
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?
What will be done to leftover tokens or tokens that were not sold, is most times left for the developers to decide on what to do with it.One thing that might put them under compulsion, but not necessary compulsory, is if it is already stated that tokens will be burnt. Then investors might want to hold them unto their words.
Jump to: