Topic: What to do with the Unsold Tokens? - page 5. (Read 1634 times)
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.
Many ico project do not get hard cap or all of token supply for selling, they will burn of token are not selling for investor and just ready some coin have sold out and reward for the ico team. Many ico burn of their unsold token for making price is higher.
The most ethical solution is to burn the unsold tokens. That way, the investors who had poured in their hard earned money in to the ICO will not feel cheated. Another less preferred option is to keep the unsold tokens in cold storage for 1-2 years and then do another round of the ICO.
Better option is to burn the remaining tokens as we all expect a higher profits on every investment that the total supply token will be reduced specially if the ICO is hardly to reached the soft cap but if the unsold token is few then to airdrop them to all participants is also the better thing to do.
With burning the token, I guess we are reducing the supply, and perhaps, this will make the rate can increase because of the supply is limit and the demand is high. But it depends on how good the token itself because if the token cannot gives any benefits or less of the benefits, then no matter if it's burnt then the demand will not be high and the price will increase. Maybe you need to ask this with the dev of every token because they know what is the situation if they burn the token so you can get the right answer from them.
definitely to burn, tokens should be burn in order to decrease the supplies therefore increase in its price in the market, most ICOs resulted to burned their tokens, to preserve their market price, if those tokens are not sold, airdrop is the next option. that is why ICOs are risky.
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.
You have a good idea. This would also enlighten the team as to how in demand their coin is. The other option I can think of is to lock the coin for a particular period of time so that dumping would be lessened when the coin is listed in exchanges. I know it is just natural for people to sell their coins immediately because of various reasons but it can easily recover if there is only a small portion of coins that are dumped in the market.
Personally i think unsold token must be burned in order to keep the price stable
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
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.
2) Unsold tokens are not burned - It can be used as a personal interest.
Exactly, the excess tokens are prone from the hands of a greedy dev. So in order to be fai and square to all, this should be burned instead of letting that greedy one to have an opportunity of becoming a price manipulator of their own platform. On the other perspective. My unsold tokens are just merely forgotten". I choose to forget my ZAP tokens (ever heard about it already? I don't think so) since I realized that it was a shitcoin after all, there's no point for expecting profits in returrn.
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.
Unsold tokens should he burned to lessen the circulating supply of the teokens. So if that's the case the price would eventually go up due to less supply and bigger demand in the market.
Option 1 is usually the best options..The onsold token to be burn from their smart contract. This will likely increase the demand for the token as the token now has s a reduce supplied total token.
I prefer to be a participant of tokens who have an unsold token are burned program because when the condition is burned, the total token in circulation will be very limited and can have a price increase and can be very expensive.
I agree more with the choice of the first unsold sold token burned, at least this will prevent dumping on the market rather than by making the second and third choices because the second and third choices tend to make the token price cheaper and even drop especially when used as an airdrop
I usually see most of unsold token will be burned on their contract smart address.
Basically, burning unsold tokens and airdropping is almost the same thing. If the ICO team adjust its reserved percentage of tokens to the amount sold, the burning of tokens is fair. If unsold tokens are airdropped accordingly to the proportion each investor owns, it's also legit. In both cases investors get the same share.
Burning the unsold tokens looks the best option because if the founders keep the unsold tokens the investors hae chance of losing their capital when it reaches the market and using them for the bounty purpose is also good but they already hae some allocation for the bounty contest so better burn them and make the remaining tokens more valuable.
unsold tokens must be burned to keep prices stable. if not burned most likely the price will go down when in the market.
Totally agree with you dude. I think this is the thing must do in all the ICO's. Other wise there will be no any demand for the tokens.
The information you provided is quite correct for ICO projects that do not sell out tokens. Depending on the manager of the project, which way is used. I myself like to burn tokens to help it increase the market price, help investors quickly recover the capital spent.
Jump to: