Topic: What to do with the Unsold Tokens? - page 6. (Read 1634 times)
Airdropping the unsold tokens would be the worst idea because that will create diluted economy for that particular coin and thus may reduce the value of the coin very quickly. I guess there is one more way which projects should start apply to those unsold coins and that is "Locking these coins". Yes, a locked period should be set for these coins like in terms of 1 year or 2 year or so on and until the lock period doesnt get finished they should not be released to the public. With these tokens in the later time a supply can be sent out when the demand is huge and thus stress situation over the project funds can be minimised. This will help the project to keep the funds safe and continue the development ahead. :-)
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.
For me,all unsold tokens must burned and never keep any amount in possession as this may be used to lower the value of the circulating tokens
I have lots of tokens in my wallets and i hate seeing another sets of tokens around aside from what is relased after ico
The unsold tokens must be keep price stable
it all depends on the team, wants to burn coins that don't sold or make them airdrop. but some of the ico programs that I follow, will burn coins that don't sell. I also don't know why it should be burned, it's better to make a bonus again for investors who still want to buy the coin.
It depends on you if you want to burn then do it but for me i would rather hold my unsold token and keep it on my wallet and wait for the time it's price will go high then i will sell it.
This way I find it reasonable. At least keep the capital safe. At high prices push it up. Need to balance just enough to participate. To minimize the risk if one is involved.
Unsold token for me should be burnt.. Base on what i see some ico who airdrop their tokens tank so hard and the value devaluated overnight upom airdroped.. You can see project who peak when airdrop started like btx and npxs but tank after airdrop
The best strategy is that burnt all unsold tokens. Thus total supply decreases and the decrease in the proposal causes the demand to increase. Then there is a big possibility for price increase.
Other routes may negatively affect the future of the project.
Other routes may negatively affect the future of the 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.
Sometimes I will hold them for maybe they can be used or can be sold in the market. But most of ths time I go for the number one option you showed above. 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.
For unsold tokens, I try to hodl for some time and thoroughly study the market and sell them when the need arises. I always sell when the ,market goes high.
Hi there!
In my opinion it depends on how many individual holders you have after the ICO, and what you goal was for that.( if you held an ICO yourself offcours )
If you have alot of holders and token buyers you should not airdrop the tokens because you already have a community.
Building on this community would be enough atleast o
If you can keep expanding using you community.
If you have alot of big investors, airdrops and not burbing tokens would be awfully painfull for investors because the price will likely drop under ico price.
For now burning is the best option in my opinion.
Greeting!
p.s. staking os more awsome or masternodes offcourse
In my opinion it depends on how many individual holders you have after the ICO, and what you goal was for that.( if you held an ICO yourself offcours )
If you have alot of holders and token buyers you should not airdrop the tokens because you already have a community.
Building on this community would be enough atleast o
If you can keep expanding using you community.
If you have alot of big investors, airdrops and not burbing tokens would be awfully painfull for investors because the price will likely drop under ico price.
For now burning is the best option in my opinion.
Greeting!
p.s. staking os more awsome or masternodes offcourse
We should burn the Unsold Token to increase the coin's scariness
It depends on you if you want to burn then do it but for me i would rather hold my unsold token and keep it on my wallet and wait for the time it's price will go high then i will sell it.
Yes, I guess its not advisable to burn your unsold tokens and i think the best thing and wise thing to do is to keep it in a safe place or shall we say holding it and wait for its pumping value. There is always a chance to go to the moon before we decide to burn it and become a waste of doing nothing.
I think most of unsold tokens are kept by the foundation and locked.
If I was the project owner, the unsold token left over, I would burn it. Create a scarce environment, push the price
It depends on you if you want to burn then do it but for me i would rather hold my unsold token and keep it on my wallet and wait for the time it's price will go high then i will sell it.
Actually if I have a unsold tokens I"m going to do is kept the coins into my private wallet and wait for the correct time of value in the market if the value high I sell it.
I'll keep on holding that token for long term. And await right time when the price of the market will back and stable price will rissing in a high value and that is the right to sell my holding tokens.
Option 1 is in my opinion the most suitable one for vast majority of ICOs. Reducing token supply means rewarding contributors to the project (less tokens = higher price of token ceteris paribus). Option 2 is very risky especially if the softcap is hardly reached and the leftover is very large amount of tokens. Option 3 is interesting, but it depends on the nature of the project.
The worthless tokens are not able to give us any profits. So I think worthless tokens should be burned. This will expand the market.
Usual answer: it depends.
You have to take into consideration how much tokens were unsold, what percentage of ICO/ coin total supply (if all of the coins are on sale) are left.
Option 1 may look good from perspective of buyer, because as you mentioned, his share increases. However if a lot of coins weren't sold it also means that dev team didn't collect as much funds as they hoped for which may impact future of coin.
Option 2 looks like devs are paid twice, first during the ICO, then they got leftovers for themselves. But if a lot of coins weren't sold it may also motivate them to work harder so unsold tokens increase in value and in the end they can make more money than if 100% were sold during ICO. Unsold coins can be also used for marketing etc. Of course they can also dump them and run away.
Third option is interesting and if done properly can make coin more popular. But I think it should be more of faucet form, because if you airdrop a lot at once token price may decrease as you mentioned + buyers may feel cheated that other people are getting coins for free while they had to pay to get them.
You have to take into consideration how much tokens were unsold, what percentage of ICO/ coin total supply (if all of the coins are on sale) are left.
Option 1 may look good from perspective of buyer, because as you mentioned, his share increases. However if a lot of coins weren't sold it also means that dev team didn't collect as much funds as they hoped for which may impact future of coin.
Option 2 looks like devs are paid twice, first during the ICO, then they got leftovers for themselves. But if a lot of coins weren't sold it may also motivate them to work harder so unsold tokens increase in value and in the end they can make more money than if 100% were sold during ICO. Unsold coins can be also used for marketing etc. Of course they can also dump them and run away.
Third option is interesting and if done properly can make coin more popular. But I think it should be more of faucet form, because if you airdrop a lot at once token price may decrease as you mentioned + buyers may feel cheated that other people are getting coins for free while they had to pay to get them.
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.
In my opinion a better strategy is to redistribute the rest of the tokens in proportion to the amount invested in the project, if the icos instead of trying to set a fixed price for their tokens decided from the very beginning that they will distribute all the tokens independently of the amount of money they raised then they will not have any need to use any of the methods that you describe above, but there are very few icos that have followed the method of distribution that I describe.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 think it depends on the commitment of devs. from the beginning, but mostly devs. use the burned option to make the token amount not excessive and still valuable.
Jump to: