Topic: What to do with the Unsold Tokens? - page 4. (Read 1634 times)
I have seen others do the third option. And it seems that the airdrop isn't even worth anything because it was low valued and if exchanged would probably be not so profitable. I think they use this strategy to let you hold their coins to keep it from dropping in value, advertise their coin and most of all keep it stable oe in balance. I don't know if this is really correct but this is just what I have observed.
usually it depends on the provider or founder of IOO, unsold tokens are usually the price will be very expensive because the unsold tokens will be burned out which means there will be no other tokens left so that the circulation is only as much as that token.
I think the best option is to burn the unsold tokens. That will increase the value of the sold altcoins and that will benefit the investors. That is my favorite choice because it always makes investors highly profitable. 
To be fair of course to the investors and the developers the best option is to burn the unsold tokens, airdropping them for free for marketing purposes makes only the price less of value than expected it will only dump by almost everyone who will receive the airdrop the one good option is to airdrop the unsold to all investors who are holding for a long time to be airdrop monthly like some projects are doing.
It's the best for both parties to just burn them. The team that will just keep them will just make an impression that these project are just really after the money and not for the project. I've seen many hacking incidents after the devs keep them and I know that it is really an inside job to squeeze much more money.
Most ICO team with good expertise choose to burn all unsold tokens. Every project or ICO has a road map and coin allocation. The coins allocated for ICO if not unsold must be burned in order to stay focus on the plans on the road map. Airdropping unsold coins only lead to the further dumping of the coin because receivers begin to sell the airdrop coins each time they receive them.
I think burning unsold coins are way betterbthan keeping them. This actually dissolves the market and decreses the value of a coin in the long run if the unsold coins are kept. Or, they could use the unsold coins and name it into something else creating a nee coin on the left overs of another coin. These should be related in a blockchain of course.
Well there are some that did not burn their tokens instead they stipulating to create another round for ICO. And fortunately they were able to sold more tokens on the next rounds. This is one way to get a good project to be implemented. One must understand how important is the capital to be used to start a good project.
Hi,
I've been reading about the strategy ICOs use for unsold tokens in case they do not reach their hard cap.
As far as I understand, there are a few options to be used for this scenario.
1) Unsold tokens are burned - the most common option used by ICOs. If tokens are burnt, token holders share will increase, therefore its price.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - founders keep them. It's not a good option at the eyes of the token holders. It can be used as a personal interest.
3) Unsold tokens are airdropped - A few ICOs (eg. FundFantasy) used this strategy. As far as they see it, the token price will be decreased but will be readjusted because people will use it.
I'm not aware of any more alternatives to those three. What are your thoughts? Would you use option 1 or go for the other two options? Would you come up with another possibility?
Thank you very much.
I am only familiar and can understand number 1 and 3 option for the unsold tokens of every campaign project. Such a wise thinking if those campaign team to exert such effort of making the unsold tokens useful and productive for the benefits of each and everyone. As far as I know, I can just recognize the possibilities that indeed those 3 options are done with those unsold tokens nothing more I can think of other options. Well, at least they have settled eveything not to be turned into a waste by thinking of a way to practically dispose it on useful ways as possible. I've been reading about the strategy ICOs use for unsold tokens in case they do not reach their hard cap.
As far as I understand, there are a few options to be used for this scenario.
1) Unsold tokens are burned - the most common option used by ICOs. If tokens are burnt, token holders share will increase, therefore its price.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - founders keep them. It's not a good option at the eyes of the token holders. It can be used as a personal interest.
3) Unsold tokens are airdropped - A few ICOs (eg. FundFantasy) used this strategy. As far as they see it, the token price will be decreased but will be readjusted because people will use it.
I'm not aware of any more alternatives to those three. What are your thoughts? Would you use option 1 or go for the other two options? Would you come up with another possibility?
Thank you very much.
There is no other choice but to do the best way to burn excessive tokens. the lower Supply is the high price. the proper airdrop is a small value because it helps to make a technology and basic adoption up to the end. The producer of values is actually using a world case just why the price is growing.
Hi,
I've been reading about the strategy ICOs use for unsold tokens in case they do not reach their hard cap.
As far as I understand, there are a few options to be used for this scenario.
1) Unsold tokens are burned - the most common option used by ICOs. If tokens are burnt, token holders share will increase, therefore its price.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - founders keep them. It's not a good option at the eyes of the token holders. It can be used as a personal interest.
3) Unsold tokens are airdropped - A few ICOs (eg. FundFantasy) used this strategy. As far as they see it, the token price will be decreased but will be readjusted because people will use it.
I'm not aware of any more alternatives to those three. What are your thoughts? Would you use option 1 or go for the other two options? Would you come up with another possibility?
Thank you very much.
I've been reading about the strategy ICOs use for unsold tokens in case they do not reach their hard cap.
As far as I understand, there are a few options to be used for this scenario.
1) Unsold tokens are burned - the most common option used by ICOs. If tokens are burnt, token holders share will increase, therefore its price.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - founders keep them. It's not a good option at the eyes of the token holders. It can be used as a personal interest.
3) Unsold tokens are airdropped - A few ICOs (eg. FundFantasy) used this strategy. As far as they see it, the token price will be decreased but will be readjusted because people will use it.
I'm not aware of any more alternatives to those three. What are your thoughts? Would you use option 1 or go for the other two options? Would you come up with another possibility?
Thank you very much.
All of those are the best options to how the tokens treated after the ico,and that would benefits both investors and bounty hunters,and ofcourse the developers
Maybe the only thing to consider is how the company decide about these excess tokens because even how we wanted what to do,but if the owner don’t agree still they will the one to decide
Hi,
I've been reading about the strategy ICOs use for unsold tokens in case they do not reach their hard cap.
As far as I understand, there are a few options to be used for this scenario.
1) Unsold tokens are burned - the most common option used by ICOs. If tokens are burnt, token holders share will increase, therefore its price.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - founders keep them. It's not a good option at the eyes of the token holders. It can be used as a personal interest.
3) Unsold tokens are airdropped - A few ICOs (eg. FundFantasy) used this strategy. As far as they see it, the token price will be decreased but will be readjusted because people will use it.
I'm not aware of any more alternatives to those three. What are your thoughts? Would you use option 1 or go for the other two options? Would you come up with another possibility?
Thank you very much.
I've been reading about the strategy ICOs use for unsold tokens in case they do not reach their hard cap.
As far as I understand, there are a few options to be used for this scenario.
1) Unsold tokens are burned - the most common option used by ICOs. If tokens are burnt, token holders share will increase, therefore its price.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - founders keep them. It's not a good option at the eyes of the token holders. It can be used as a personal interest.
3) Unsold tokens are airdropped - A few ICOs (eg. FundFantasy) used this strategy. As far as they see it, the token price will be decreased but will be readjusted because people will use it.
I'm not aware of any more alternatives to those three. What are your thoughts? Would you use option 1 or go for the other two options? Would you come up with another possibility?
Thank you very much.
Theres no better way to do about unsold tokens but to burnt because thats the reason how the investors and hunters who hold the tokens trust to hold longer their token,because theres nothing will triggers them to sell for the reason of having faith for long term holdings
From the list of your suggested points, all unsold tokens should be burnt or kept away from the system so as to avoid massive dumping. By so ddoing, it helps to stabilize the price or value of the token in the crypto market. This goes a long way to benefit all investprs and bounty hunters for their hard work.
Personally i think unsold token must be burned in order to keep the price stable
Burning tokens or cryptocurrency most of the time is just a way to bring an incentive for investors in the long run, as that would reduce the circulating supply and it is not just held by the team and for publicity these days, and to assure the investors, it has become a common practice these days. What is most important in the long run is simply the demand, even though a lot of projects tend to buy back and burn, the essence of the burn would just have been to reduce the circulating supply and make it grow in value quickly based on the level of demand for it. I personally prefer unsold tokens to be burned anyway.
Personally i think unsold token must be burned in order to keep the price stable
Burning tokens or cryptocurrency most of the time is just a way to bring an incentive for investors in the long run, as that would reduce the circulating supply and it is not just held by the team and for publicity these days, and to assure the investors, it has become a common practice these days. What is most important in the long run is simply the demand, even though a lot of projects tend to buy back and burn, the essence of the burn would just have been to reduce the circulating supply and make it grow in value quickly based on the level of demand for it. I personally prefer unsold tokens to be burned anyway.
For most of ICO campaign i belong with, tokens that are unsold are to be burned actually they even set dates to burn tokens to avoid unnecessary use of the token.
Many developers team keep unsold token and lock it for months or 1 years. Its not good investor because total supply still large and its profitable for developers team because when market start increase, they can dump it and can hurt the price
For a while now, just for the sake of increasing the value of the token in the long run while making it rare and as long as the demand for a crypto asset and its overall demand increases, obviously, the growing volume would help increase the value in the long run if the unsold tokens were burned. Nonetheless, burning a token does not simply mean or make it a guarantee that the value of the remaining token will increase as that is simply always dictated anyway by supply and demand but for a demanded coin, burnt unsold tokens, would just make the available ones in supply to increase in value quickly.
I personally believe that rather than burning unsold tokens, which doesn't really do too much in the long run. Instead, ICOs should reduce their total supply by the difference in sold vs available tokens as a ratio. For example, if 50% of tokens were sold, then the total supply should be reduced by 50%, thereby increasing the rarity of each token by 2.
Yeah that can be. I don't get it why some ICO is creating billions of supply which they ( maybe ) don't know that the chances of the price to rise will be limited. Why just create a specific quantity that's enough for the token allocation.
Don't want to be rude but for me, I feel like the token will be shitcoin by this billions of supply.
So far as I read its most common to burn unused tokens so as to establish a base price to principal investors and establish a price going forwards. I would also argue the company needs a cache of tokens to pay expenses not yet met to any IPO and fund items such as advertising or training but also usually the case so far I know.
Just retaining the token unsold and unused would leave an known over future supply. XRP has this problem, of gigantic future supply available only to the centralised controllers of their operation. If markets accounted for the value overall, it should include those.
The oppisite quite often happens in stocks with share buybacks and cancellation of the shares. This is a way of returning money to all holders.
Just retaining the token unsold and unused would leave an known over future supply. XRP has this problem, of gigantic future supply available only to the centralised controllers of their operation. If markets accounted for the value overall, it should include those.
The oppisite quite often happens in stocks with share buybacks and cancellation of the shares. This is a way of returning money to all holders.
For me it will be good if the unsold token will be burned. There are many says that if the supply of a token/currency is low. The demand will increase while if its huge amount of supply the demand js low so the price is low. So if they burned the unsold token the supply will be decrease and the price will be increase.
right, this will make quality of that token. if it is not burned, the token will certainly have a low price, and investors will be less sympathetic about it. and usually each project will provide information that unsold tokens will be burned when ico takes place Jump to: