Topic: Who's responsible for the dead coins? (Read 705 times)

Dead coins are a result of schemes most of the time but the general consensus is that dead coins are cryptocurrencies that were basically abandoned both by the development team and investors. There is just a general lack of interest from the market.
It is our money so it is our responsibility. We shouldn't expect anyone to coddle us and hold our hand as we navigate through the world of many cryptocurrencies.

Of course developers can't tell investors when to sell their assets and when not to because the crypto markets are always sentimental by investors different goals but the same expectations which is to make profits. Besides MemeCoins are known for short terms holding knowing quite well that developers could take break of applying marketing strategies to keep coin hyping and once there's a such break, the coin began to loos values which most lucky Investors could sell off before it's too late which likely the coin could just die off and investors funds would go just like that.

I think the developers are the ones most responsible for the death of the coin. and This is why we need to be careful in choosing our crypto projects to avoid losing assets and of course Before investing in a project, one must go through all aspects of investment.

It’s very hard if you will not do a thorough research but you can easily spot project that can survive even on crypto winter by determining the financial strength of the project.

It’s either through their marketing, token trading volume and the team development progress since mediocre project usually weak on this area since they don’t prioritize this factor and just focus on how they can run the project slowly until they exit scam.

The primary issue is that if you are an investor in the project, will you allow all of your money disappear along with the dead coins that you ahve invested in? Dead coin refers to a fraudulent coin manufactured by a scammer and this can also refer to the fake company created by scammer. To deceive investors, scammers would sometimes impersonate themselves and create a bogus company in order to lure the investors to provide the liquidity for their fake coins. This has been happening many times.
 
It is certainly the obligation of the developer, but keep in mind that investors also play a role in finding a legitimate investment for their money. The better for investors to have a preventative measure to invest only in the proven coins to decrease the risk being deceived by scammers..

Only invest in legitimate coins to prevent the danger of being scammed.

Exactly, that's what we are suppose to do but the question is how can one know the coin that will survive in the market just by merely looking at it, it's very hard to identify an alt that will do well and sometimes even with running some analysis we still choose the wrong alt most times. so my question now is how can one identify the right alt to invest in cause there are thousands of alt out there and to an extent I think it's just like playing gamble, and in gamble we are not certain of the outcome likewise investing in some alt.

In my opinion, it is very simple that we as traders must be able to choose altcoins that are able to survive in market capitalization because if the altcoin dies then no one is responsible. Here we are only looking for profit and that is the same thing with developers and investors.So be wise in choosing altcoins as your investment.

In my opinion, both have their respective roles and responsibilities. Developers are responsible for their projects, whether they develop or not, that is the responsibility of the developers. And developers are also responsible for their investors, because after all, investors have entrusted and invested their money in the project. So whatever happens, it should be resolved, devs must be able to complete, make developments, and anticipate everything that happens to their project. That's if the devs are truly responsible, and ideally that's the case. However, we understand very well that in the crypto world, it doesn't always work like that. In fact, many developers are very irresponsible and scammers who only focus and think about one-sided profits for themselves without understanding and caring about their investors or the projects they choose for themselves.

And on the other hand, investors must also be responsible for themselves. In other words, they must understand exactly what they are investing in and be prepared for all the risks. By being responsible for themselves and the money they invest, they should be better and more mature in choosing projects to invest in. However, unfortunately not all investors think so because what they are looking for is sometimes temporary profits from projects that are just hype at that time. So, whatever it is, investors also have to be responsible for themselves.

Exactly, And this is usually followed by various delisting of the coins or tokens from exchanges, and if there is a lot of information regarding the delisted coins or tokens, then that should be a warning for investors to be careful with their assets in these coins or tokens. And of course, this is a very important warning for developers to take the next steps so as not to delist more of their coins, and this includes the devs' efforts to increase their market cap. Because this is indeed a high consideration from investors to stick to each project. But yes, once again, sometimes we find irresponsible developers who actually run away when their market cap gets worse or their coins are delisted from exchanges.

It could be on either both.

Developers.

1. Huge coin/token allocation
2. Not active on marketing
3. Not so much progression on their project or simply didnt follow their roadmap.
4. Promises ended up on being a lie.
5. Utility and relevance is a major thing

Investors

1. Lack of interest
2. Dumping their tokens with 10-20% profits on presale.
3. Just leave out the project because there's not much when it comes to potential or basing up with its utility
4. Being affected with some FUD.


These are the risks that could really lead up into a project to become dead which demand and recognition would really be the
main points on which the survival of a certain project could have. There are really just that those moments or situations that even the shitiest no utility project or coin
do ends  on having multi million of marketcap and this is something those people were hunting on.

And add it to what you have said, there are also some factors involved in the dead of a coin and they, the developers are not truthful and they are scammers. And once people notice that the developers are scammers then nobody will be interested to invest in that project because the fear is they will be scammed and for that nobody will have that interest to invest in the project and if anyone invest in it others will discourage him.

Then another thing that can make a project to die is the Market Cap and the value of the project. If the market cap is not good enough, people will not even look into it and the community support/the population of the project also determined the crowd of investors attracted to the project. Example, NOTcoin is one of the popular token in the cryptocurrency market.

The correlation between supply and demand determines the fate of cryptocurrencies. In case of dead coins, it means there is zero demand for them, as no one is interested anymore. Then you can blame the developers for launching and offering something so useless that nobody is interested on it.

In fact, many of the dead coins were solely created with the purpose of launching temporary hype, so developers sell their personal holdings for quick profit, turning their native tokens into Bitcoin, stsblecoin or any other consolidated altcoins, while majority of investors (the late ones) see their personal investments melting to zero value by holding such useless tokens.

On the other hand, you can also blame the investors for being greedy to invest in a product fully dependant on speculation to survive.

After all, you can put the responsability over anyone or consider it just a natural process of a decentralized market. The most important here is to avoid investing in such tokens at all costs.

if a company goes bankrupt when its investors sell their shares en masse, is it the investors' fault? no, because investors are just trying to save their money and that is normal, the one to blame is the company management. and just like that, when a coin dies because the holders dump it on a large scale, it is not the holder's fault, but the coin developer who cannot provide the best solution for the development of the coin. because if developers can develop and manage these coins well, then they can avoid things like this from happening.

No one really has fault of it but if there will be one to have chances of sustaaining the project in long term, that would be the team behind it of course. We have no control of majority's favor when it comes on projects but the team could improve its sectors such as being active to social media platforms, to continue updating the project, and the likes to simply make a project alive. We cannot force people to engage into a project but at least  people who started a project could do something when comes on prolonging a project's presence to this industry.
They cannot compensate their investors because all of them took the risk. It should be more of a mutual understanding; investors helping to promote the project and the developers to continue improving it to attract more people and to contribute with the project's growth.

I agree with you, the failure of the development team is responsible for the death of the altcoins. Developer teams may have inconsistencies in their operations that may not attract investors. Dev teams use various strategies to attract investment but they may not focus and control price volatility. Investors basically want to invest where their capital will be safe. So coins death is mostly over the dev team.

Of course, the first thing to blame is those who are seen as failing to realize what was previously considered successful and promising investors high profits at all costs to invest in their platforms.

My question is, if such conditions are already bankrupt will they compensate for losses and all losses to their users. I thought, no. They will run off and shut down all information channels related to their project.

In my opinion, the developers bear the primary responsibility for a coin becoming "dead." It's their job to create a compelling coin with good utility and to market it effectively to attract investors.

When a coin loses value and investors withdraw, it's usually because the coin no longer serves a purpose or isn't interesting anymore. The blame mostly falls on the development team, as they are responsible for the coin's success. If the coin truly had potential, investors would trust the team and continue to invest.

But you are skipping the most important part, why would investors abandon a project all of a sudden? Is it because it is a great project and they are simply doing a series of actions that go against their own interests just because? Or are they bailing on that project because it is a terrible one and they have lost the hope they had in it?

And if is is the latter, then who is it to blame for such a thing? The developers, so it is a mistake to blame the investors for the collapse of a coin, since the collapse was caused by the developers and their mistaken decisions they took along the way.

There is no way on earth we can blame investors for the dead of Altcoin, it's a total failure of dev team and entire management because investors are the believers of the project which do what an investor can do by investing the money but it's the job of marketing team to outreach investors and dev team to develop the project and ensure it's adopted by users.

with the law of supply and demand its just hard to determine which one at fault, but honestly its just both fault, the investors are investing in a project in which lacking liquidity probably because they have too much of a coin causing people to be hesitant in investing their money afraid the investors would dump them meanwhile the team are just not really good at executing whatever roadmap they are having probably the cause of the coin succumbing to become a coin with zero liquidity meaning its a dead coin.
I guess with the investing, it works like you are investing into a new company, you just don't sure whether its gonna become successful in the future, and the money spent for business expendables aren't really sure to be able to return.
so if it went zero then its investors' loss as well as long as the team abide to the roadmap they proposing to the investors anyway.
but most of the time coin become dead because the coin just not that good.

No one are. It's not like that they went out of circulation. They are there in your wallet. They just don't get enough value for people to keep transacting and exchange keep supporting them. 99% of dead coins are half-hearted pump and dump coins, where the developer works on it for short time by choice. The early investors profit from the pump while later investors are the one responsible for not doing proper research about the coin. There are no identity proof or team reveal for people to initiate a legal fraud case.
On some others, the development team and in case of community owned coins the volunteers can't keep up or could no longer maintain the project even if they want to. With rising competition, we'll be seeing more and more once popular coins die at our life time. Not every coins are future proof so we need to keep analyzing what we hold.