Bitcoin Forum

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 believe those are those only option they have got. Or else they might just start with less coin count (rare ICO's) and however 99% use the first option only. This makes sense because if you are not going to burn them then it means only one thing there will be huge unwanted supply of the coins. This will create less demand and high supply situation and thus making the coins go down the hill very quickly. I guess its good stuff that they burn it.

unsold tokens must be burned to keep prices stable. if not burned most likely the price will go down when in the market.

As far as i know most of the tokens from the ICO's that unsold are automatically they burned.
Honestly i agree on what they do to the unsold tokens to burned or maybe the other tokens will become an airdrop.

Unsold tokens are only bringing risk in future since investors might not buy another again,this must be burnt and should be by this the possibility of pumping is higher than those coins is still on hand

Owner must be responsible of their tokens or coins because the beneficiaries are the investors and holders that may trust the said coin/tokens

Thank you guys for your replies.

Seems like there's no doubt that Burning tokens are the best option in here. I've got an additional question, do you know any ICOs that they used a different approach to burning the tokens and its result? (eg. FundFantasy)

Thank you very much guys :)

The best option to burn the excess tokens.  Lower Supply = Higher price.  It's fine to airdrop a small amount because this helps build a userbase and mainstream adoption.  In the end, the amount of users and real world use case is what makes the price grow.

I am for option 1, unsold tokens should burned. A lower circulating supply is the best thing that can happen. It's good for investors, the ICO team and the bounty campaign participants. The smaller the circulating supply, the higher the price can rise theoretically. That does not always work, but it's still the best solution for everyone.  :)

I agree with you! Those unsold tokens will be burned, and it is probably burned. This is the good thing's to do to make ICO successful. It is the cycle of the market, that if the circulating supplies are small, then it will make the price higher.

This varies depending on the rules of the company who raised the ICO. I have seen an ICO that does not burn the unsold tokens but they added them on the funds of the project that will benefit the end user of their platform. Just like the reward system of mining, unsold tokens were allotted as additional reward. Although the price might go down because of the supply, they countered it by increasing the reward.

point number 2 can be used on the staking system , so the token given every month to their holder with POS system , like rebelous token as i know

I once had tokens which, thankfully, I sold earlier before the the unsold tokens from the company were hacked and stolen. This significantly dropped the price of the token. Apparently, they where to go to cold storage and not to be used again but then the hack happened. Option 1 would have been the better choice. But now, I wonder if they did it on purpose.

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.

Most projects decide to burn, but some choose to lock the unsold tokens for a definite period time in order to have another sale or lock them for other various reasons.

I personally don't feel comfortable with the latter, I'd rather see them gone. You never know what it could happen with those "Reserve" tokens, especially that ICOs are so damn shady nowadays.

Airdrops? Nah, ruins the price and the project doesnt benefit of anything, don't even think about that. Just burn 'n go.

But there are tokens being airdropped on random addresses, giving away a small amount of token, ranging from 1-10 tokens; and they're all worthless. If they would airdrop those unsold tokens, they should have given it to their investors. Airdrop tokens piss me off everyday when I visit etherscan.

The best option to keep the price stable or to make it increases is definitely by burning the unsold tokens.
Another possibility is to sold that amount progressively or to create some challenges with unsold tokens as a reward, in that manner, the price will remain quite stable.

Most of the ICOs strategy is to burn their unsold tokens to make the supply lower to push the demand higher.

Unsold tokens using it for airdrop is inappropriate, they can only conduct it before the ICO so that's a bad strategy to use those unsold tokens for continuous marketing.

This is the main reason why option 1 is the best. Projects next to burn it so that the price could have the potential to go up in the future. If there are billions or millions of coins in circulation, its going to saturate the market thus resulting in the coin less stable. Possible airdrops are a good options as well, but if those hunters sold the coins then it will be back on circulation that might push the price down after airdrops is completed.

Most of the ICO really burned the unsold token so the value of their token will increase, but we are not so sure about it since it can really transfer to anyone within the team, some of the token are being locked for at least a year or what but better to look for some ICO that they plan to burn the unsold token.

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.

To me, I believe there should be a form of reward for the real project investors who participated in the ICO because without them, that project may never be actualized. As such, the unsold tokens should be redistributed to the ICO investors in proportion of their investments or tokens purchased. I think this makes sense.

most ICO I know use either option 1 or 3...haven't seen option 2 yet.

From what I learned, if the ico token have huge supply they tend to burn excess to lower the supply thus increase the demand and eventually value of the coin.
The others just airdrop the excess token to it's investor if the token supply is just small like hundred million (coz most token have billion supply  and those what opted to coin burn).

The 3rd option, maybe the tokens can be airdropped to the investors, so even the price is going down but the investors will still get profit


this is the worst Option I ever know, but I never found ICOs that use this option

They usually burned the tokens as what oftentimes the developer announces. This is favorable to the token holders as the price will go up. But I also have observed using airdrop to facilitate holding of tokens. When dropped in very small value it becomes useless. How can a person gain from it when the value is just worth the trabsaction fee? So this is how they do it as I have oftentimes observed.

IMO,the first option is good if founders wanted to create high demand for their token and thus a higher price in shorter time . However,i prefer the third option as airdrops are such an amazing marketing technique that can attract a lot of people who never heard about that project and can make good profits in the long term.

I think that in the interest of the people who actually invested in the project the best thing to do is to burn any unsold token.

I would not feel right if I risked my money, and then others got the tokens for free just because.

to anticipate it all, I always always sell the tokens I've got. between me can not wait anymore, and do not want to take risks with hold tokens in a long time.

The ubsold token will depend on the ico's decision. There are some ico that they will burned the unsold token and the other are ico will not gonna end unless the all the tolen will sold

I think burning the unsold coins are way better than kreping it around. I mean the less coins in the market the higher the price is. Besides, it could also make the existing coin much more stable it there are less coins going around. There is also an option on the founders keeping them since they were the first to stake in the coins.

Give it for free. It just increases the possibility that more people will buy the token after the ICO. I mean i see alot of people being surprised to see that they have a new coin in their wallets and research about it. That is publicity, and if they like what they see then they will buy more. I think doing airdrops is more productive than burning the unsold coins.

I think the best option when hard cap not reached is burning unsold token. If token unsold burned, its will reducing total supply and when landed on exchanger, that token price will increasing.
For investor, I am believe they will choose burning unsold token option, because its more profitable for them

That might be the three options for those unsold tokens but I would choose an ICO that will burn their unsold tokens. Because it will limit their circulating supply in the market which make it more promising to pump in the future.

If an ICO pre-sale has unsold tokens left in its sale then it was one of the bad signs that the developers didn't hit the expected target, the more unslold tokens they have the lesser expected demand the will see after the release in the market this in itself is a bad sign for early investors, and the most logical and sound solution is just by burning the unsold tokens. The investors planning on keeping them or by distributing it as a free token will result on a bad long term effect, it will most likely decrease the confidence of their investors.

Thank you guys for your replies.  :)

Okay, there should be even more options for sure, but I did not think about it before.

A bit of a summary,

1) You can burn the unsold tokens

2) Keep the unsold tokens
2.1) Airdrop them
2.2) Give them to the founders
2.3) Use it in a reserve fund to incentivize the usage of the token, for example, by promoting the usage of tokens (eg. reduce fees during a certain period)
2.4) Use it for bounty programs?

Of course, 2.3 & 2.4 must be specified in the White Paper beforehand.

What do you guys think about the other options (2.3 and 2.4)?

Usually it is decided by the developers team of particular project, but I have heard that the process of burning unsold tokens most of the times rises that price of the currency significantly. So it is good for us.

Some companies distribute unsold tokens between ICO members. For example, it was in Kin. First came the basic tokens that people bought on the ICO, and then an additional 20% of the tokens.

hold until there is no price. just think of it as a decoration in our wallet. who knows a few years more coins that do not sell or not have price so live and expensive. only hope.
I also have a lot of coins that do not sell, still safely stored my wallet for display.

Mostly they burn the unsold tokens. It keeps the price stable. Sometimes companies distribute the unsold tokens to the coin holders too so that it everyone gets proportional amount of coins/tokens.

Unsold tokens which are burnt is a good strategy and that is followed for most of the successful ICO's as per my knowledge. The unsold tokens cannot and should not be used for any other purpose like Airdrop or for employees to make the coin valuable. If the unsold tokens are distributed then the token price will drastically reduce and there won't be any future prospect for the ICO project and it is very difficult to move forward its price in the future.

Option 2 is the most dangerous for investors in such project, as if the team can influence on the price of their token. Even if there is a token lock period after that they will have chances to do so, when we're dealing with dishonest ico teams.
Most preferable option is the token burn, its fair for everyone, and definitely adds value into that token (this doesn't apply on the current market of course :)
There are still some projects who do only airdrop to their community in few phases, which can last even 1 year, by doing so people are motivated to hold to get more.

Hi;

I think "airdrop" is more sensible but "burn" is more profitable.

Kind regards

Some of the times I even heard that bounty managers and team took those unsold tokens for themselves. I'm thinking that this is not the most right decisions for them, but they are leading so it is depending on them.

I think some of projects are using circulation system, that is, adding unsold token into the circulation exchange gradually

Most ICO with unsold tokens will burn them. Maybe they do that to reduce the token supply or to keep the token price stability on the crypto market.

Burning is the best option in my point of view. When you burn few tokens get into circulation, the demand is set at enticing prices, and then the coin gets value.

Just keep your tokens because those coins that you earn will still grow depending on the project or how good is the platform running in the industry.

I think it would be right to burn, otherwise it is a direct attack on the money of investors by inflation. looks like cheating.

Just hold your coins and wait for the price to pump up, always remember that the market is volatile so your coins will still has the chance to grow its price if the project is really good.

which I know, sometimes they burn it to keep the price of a coin, but sometimes they freeze, or store it, in case, and sometimes they distribute it to airdrop, or to investors, well, that's what I know about it.

Even if you hold your coins, it will be bad if the developers decided not to burn the unsold tokens. The reason they are burning it is that to keep the price high and wanting to make their token in demand. And with lower supply circulating in the market, it has a high possibility of having a good price in the future but the problem is the bounty hunters selling off quickly the tokens in so low price.

In my opinion. better unsold token burned. so the number of tokens that have been circulated in the market can not be added again so that the number is limited. so it can increase the sale value of the token.

Most of ICO will burn the unsold token and i agree with this option. This will makes the price higher in the future as the number of token's circulation is limited

I don't have anything to add because i also agree of this three options. Most Ico do number 1 for the coins to increase in value.

Options #2 and #3 are unethical as it is like cheating the investors who hard participated in the ICO. If there are unsold tokens, then they should be either burnt or distributed proportionally to everyone who had participated in the ICO.

I think each project has their own plan, and the most often done by many projects is burning unsold coins. it is done to keep the coin in balance with the funds earned. in addition, it is also possible to make the price more stable.

I dont know what you actually mean with unsold tokens are airdropped but i think the best option that will very fair for all parties is redistribute the unsold tokens.
Redistribute the unsold tokens to the ICO participant based on token they have bought (like stakes).

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 think the best thing to unsold token is burning, with ideal stock it will keep investor confidence and of course this can make the price stable or even skyrocket.

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.

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.

The worthless tokens are not able to give us any profits. So I think worthless tokens should be burned. This will expand the market.

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.

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.

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.

If I was the project owner, the unsold token left over, I would burn it. Create a scarce environment, push the price

I think most of unsold tokens are kept by the foundation and locked.

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.

We should burn the Unsold Token to increase the coin's scariness

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! 8)  p.s. staking os more awsome or masternodes offcourse

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

The unsold tokens must be keep price stable

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

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. :-)

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.

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.

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.

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.

I usually see most of unsold token will be burned on their contract smart address.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Personally i think unsold token must be burned in order to keep the price stable

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

I also prefer if unsold tokens are burned too, of course price of the token will be competitive and dev can develop with the funds already reached. besides that it will certainly be a transparency for investors to continue to support a project

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.   

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. ;D

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 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.

Maybe the dev should burn the token so it will reduce the supply and they can hope that it will make the price can increase although not much. This is what I often see on the tokens or coins, but I don't know for sure. Maybe they will search another way to solve this problem because the unsold tokens mean they cannot sell the token in the right price.

as an investor point of view, i prefer them to burned.because if there are so many tokens remaining unsold after a crowdsale, those tokens can be used for manipulating the price in the future or price can be dumped easily with them.

There is no point of keeping unsold tokens unless the company has plans of putting them in the market. Good ICO's burn them to make sure it won't find it's way into circulation.

 I suddenly confused where is the unsold coins go.Well, I do not think they will burned it. I though it will vanish away or deleted in the internet. Or maybe the creator has another plan for it, because it is so hard to invent a coins and then after it did not sold they will throw it away somewhere. I could not think they will burned it because it is hard to developed a coins that can used to a transactions.

That mindset usually that the unsold tokens will not end up in the pocket of the owners and might make the idea of centralization of the token even come into play, burning it will always give some guarantee to investors as long as burning them also gives a chance of causing an increase in the price of the token quickly when there is an increase in demand. These days, there is always that notion that comes to investors when they realized the team does not have any plan to burn unsold tokens, and that can actually halt their plans to want to invest. So, burning is the best option for both parties like someone rightly said.

Burning unsold tokens leave the investors peaceful that at least the supply of the tokens is controlled and in the long run, the amount of tokens in circulation will obviously affect the price of the token in the long run, and as an investor, you sure want to be able to get rest assured that your investment will quickly pay off in the long run. These days a lot of investors are usually more interested in what happens to unsold tokens and that has made it a criterion in a way for the team to always consider burning them.

^^ Really depends what occurs with the token worth.  It is possible the tokens could be used towards raising the overall value of the project.
 I agree with excess supply because that weakens the price but if token used were able to raise the demand for the project then the opposite is true

Its a question of the overall quality and efficiency of implementation for the project really

As far as I remember, the vast majority of ICOs are trying to burn their tokens in order to avoid a fall in the price of their coin!

I think the best strategy is to burn unsold tokens. If the percentage of unsold token is too high, the number of token remaining in the team will be too high. This creates untrusted situation about price. BTW some Ico's can choose to distribute unsold tokens to whitelisted investors, which may be a good choice.

Unsold tokens can only be HODL, etc. These tokens are listed to the exchange!
Only valuable tokens have the value of hodl, there are some ico scams, only tokens are issued, not on the exchange!
If you encounter these tokens, your luck is bad!

If that unsold token are possible to be listed in an exchange that was better if not it will be hold forever without any value or it was already worthless. If you are bounty hunter you should be more picky or choosy which ico will be promoted or advertise to make your time more valueable or not be wasted.

i am agree with you dude.if developers team holding too much unsold token investor should worry if someday it dumped by developers.

Mostly some ICO project developer,they burn the unsold token in order to have a great and marketable product especially when they reached the hard caps,and thats  mostly the needs of some investor and participants of thats saying project,in order to protect the price value of the given token and would not turn someday into a shit coin,otherwise some ICO project developer they recycle some unsold token or they given it as a part of airdrop.

I know that the unsold tokens will be burned, but not a few are not burned, they hold them on the DEV and some continue with ICO stage 2

Most ICOs burn they unsold tokens because that is the only way to destroy it after ICO in other for them to be able to manage the project and to avoid pump and dump, that is why ICO teams that don't have proper management of the unsold coins tend to become pump and dump in the future.

Some ICOs burn coins that don't sell at their sales and some freeze for the next year. Every development has different thoughts, so it depends on the dev of the ICO. Their choice to make an ICO will be successful or not.

Probably the best thing to do for an ico in case something like this happens is to have very clear policies from the very beginning about what they're going to do if not all the tokens are sold, because as we are seeing right now it is becoming more and more difficult for icos to reach their goals when it comes to funding, but if no policy was implemented from the very beginning about what to do with tokens that were not sold then the option number one seems to be the most fair and the one that is the easiest to perform, because airdropping tokens is very unfair to all of those that paid money for them and if the developers instead decide to keep the tokens then possible accusations that the project is a scam may arise.

Burning is the best option in my point of view. When you burn few tokens get into circulation, the demand is set at enticing prices, and then the coin gets value,that is what I know and many of the ico projects do this

I agree more if the unsold tokens are burned, rather than airdrop, because if you use an airdrop it will make the price of the token cheaper, but there may be other purposes that we do not know that a company makes a drop from the token unsold, maybe they intend to promote harder through airdrop

I think the first option is the most rational one, which is an unsold token will be burned because investors will not worry if there is a price destruction on the market if the unsold token is not burned, especially if the team keep the token, the team may sell most of the tokens on the market and it is terrible for traders and investors.

usually, when the token is unsold, they will airdrop to investors or those tokens will be burn.

Unsold tokens are only bringing risk in future since investors might not buy another again,this must be burnt and should be by this the possibility of pumping is higher than those coins is still on hand

Owner must be responsible of their tokens or coins because the beneficiaries are the investors and holders that may trust the said coin/tokens

I don't believe if the team stores unsold tokens for future development. According to me, the alternative way to make price of token stable or more than ICO price, unsold token must be burned because the less the total supply, the higher the price of token on market

With each and every ico, the unsold tokens were buried. With that into calculation only the volume into circulation were calculated. Scam projects might store back the tokens without burning. Those burned tokens were shown to the investors for clarification. Very small percentage at times were distributed as airdrops.

Burning the token which is unsolved is the better idea then others because it actually not going to touch the where you after talking even after the sale but if it airdropped to the investors or  to the participants to promote more then it will decrease holding current value to further more.

From what we have seen, most ICO projects burn their coins to avoid devaluation after the crowdsale. Another option is to airdrop them among the investors. They will get an equal share of the remaining coins/tokens.

Token needs to be burnt because it is really the best thing to do about the token to avoid an  unnecesary used of it because if the token is burnt it is really a pair to investors who invest a big amount into it. I believe that we really need to burnt.

BURN

I am confused by the fact that many projects initially declare their intention to burn unsold tokens, but when it comes to this, it often happens that the team decides to leave the tokens at their disposal. This is unfair to investors because it greatly reduces the shares of other investors. I believe that this is unacceptable.

It depends upon the developers of the project but most of them are burning the tokens. If they would not burn the tokens, there is a fishy thing behind that. Specially if the unsold tokens will come to the hands of the developers. Most of the investors are asking for unsold token because they want transparency when it come to the number of tokens that circulating in exchanges.

They will be burned,the tokens spent by users will be withdrawn from circulations and the discount on services will simply be unavailable.

as if this is a fraud, then don't be surprised if after the token listing is marketed, the price immediately drops and seems worthless. if it is like that it certainly makes investors disappointed, because besides the loss of time, they also lose in terms of investment

If this is the case then surely it's very shady for a project to not burn the supposedly tokens that are not bought, because it will dramatically affect the price of it. They should be call out, no matter what or who is the team behind, specially if it says on the white paper that it should be disposed in the appropriate time and manner.

But so far though, I haven't heard anything, but it doesn't mean that this is not being practiced by projects before. Again, call them out, open a scam accusations in this community and let them answer it.

Freezing unsold tokens is kinda acceptable if team promise to use this tokens for token development after fixed timeframe. Burned tokens increases revenue for investors but low supply doesn't prevent dumping on exchanges after listing. Sometimes team decides to decrease the bounty&marketing pool for protecting their investors but unfortunately this method doesn't work always.

Token burning has its flaws as well and depends on the utility of the project we are talking. If the project needs a reasonable supply in order to make the project work then it is wrong to burn them. I think that a combination of these 3 ways is the best. And probably you can lock some tokens for a certain period that may be unlocked for a sale or to potential investors that achieve a certain trading volume. This raises awareness of your project.

I think I would suggest to use those 1 and 3 strategy to make the value of the currency to increase the price and to increase the number of people who will gonna use the currency. And I think it will make more sense to get the attention of some investors and see that the value of the currency can really increase in the future just like other platforms they usually do that great strategy.

I personally prefer the first option, that all unsold coins will be burned, so I think it will be beneficial for investors and project owners because when the supply becomes smaller the price will also be able to survive. but many people also choose unsold coins to be distributed via airdrop.

I think this is not particularly important. As far as I know, at XRP about 50% of all tokens belong to the founders of the coin. At one time, everyone argued that this is bad and that XRP is not a decentralized cryptocurrency, but nevertheless it is now 2 currency by capitalization on the CMC. I would rather look at the project itself, and not at the distribution of tokens. If the project has a strong team, there is a HYIP around the project and a really lively, necessary idea, then the project will fire. And the distribution of tokens will not play an important role.

The unvalued tokens are to be useless till it will be getting any value but nothing can be done by us without holding the tokens and this is the only thing that we can do by ourself while holding a useless token.

still hold, there will definitely be a time when the token will soon be launched into the market exchange. if you are impatient, do you want to send your token to my wallet? certainly not right? because you get it from the results of hard work.

LOL, I'm pretty sure you are not reading.
Unsold tokens means those tokens that are not sold during the ICO, we cannot hold that, it's the team who are holding it
and they will do the appropriate action that is written in the white paper.

If it says that unsold tokens should be burn then they have to do it, it will lower the supply, and will result to a better price.

we are here talking about the context of tokens that do not sell well. that the token that doesn't sell should be what? of course it must be burnt or there will be a notice of distribution to each holder to be fair between the team and the investor

I will holding with my unsold token, we can't do anything because this ICO was failed and scam, how ever when an ICO have unsold token we will get refund of our money have purchase to buy and invest at their ICO project.

Many unsold tokens are usually burned so as not to affect existing tokens, that's what I know. The supply must be in accordance with the request so it can run and have a price.

many good projects do that, by burning unsold tokens, of course, it will add to the quality of the project, so that investors will still be fully supportive. if the project does not do this, of course this will reduce the price of the token, so that investors seem to be harmed. but unfortunately not all projects do that, many even run away with investor funds

Unfortunately no ICO can be refunded and in case any ICO become scams or the coins are not in exchange, we can only wait as there is no other option. No one will be willing to buy these useless tokens / coins from us.

The Lesson to learn from this is that we should be very careful in investing in the ICO. We should study the project thoroughly before taking any decision for the investments in ico.

It would be great if unsold token will be burned. With this strategy, total supply token will reduce a lot and perhaps the price will increasing when landed on exchanger. But developers team must be have their own strategy if they not burn unsold token, maybe for project development

I just feel that burning tokens will be a very good thing for further development. because it will be more awake with existing funds. many ICO teams use things like this to maintain the quality of their prices in accordance with the funds they collect. but after all each team has its own strategy, it is only my personal choice.

another strategy was unsold token used to airdrop or loyalty program for token holder.this strategy very effective to make price stable.holder and investors usually prefer hold their token till this program launched.

There are selfishness in 3 choices there. If we choose the # 1 option, the business will definitely have to spend more to buy back its token number. => businesses lose a lot of money.
If we choose option 2, investors will suffer losses because too many tokens are used. => investors have mixed opinions and do not want to cooperate.
If we choose option 3, it will take a lot of time and will delay the progress of the project and this choice is still not beneficial for investors.
Whether a good project depends on founder. if they are a genuine founder, They will know what they do to be good for investors and businesses. ;)

Yes the token is not sold according to the maximum amount it will be burned because the value is very low on the market. if saved because the amount is limited there is a possibility that the value will increase.

the value of unusable tokens are not in a good stage that's why we are still holding them for the future but holding useless tokens are not a good way make some other more to get the profit from other type of investment tell me the right way to take the next step.

Mostly, for what is happening for the unsold token was they burn it. Why? of course to remain stable the price of their token.
Actually, the more they burn the token there is big chances for the coins to increase its value in the future. This is what I know about this kind of burning token if it is unsold.

By my opinion unsold tokens are coming to nothing. The situation shows that a holder should to sell tokens right after they appear on an exchanger or he will stay with coins that cost nothing and the time which was plspebt for token making will be worfless.

I usually heard from several ICO's they burned the unsold token, but i think not all ICO will increase their token value once they burn some of it. I think its till depend huw usedful their token and how utility it is.

I am agree that burning token will not increasing the token price automatically. Its depends on the product or project. If the project works and market confident with this token, i am believe the price will increase even the token not burn. Burn unsold token is one factor to make price increase

If i am investor in ICOs, i will choosing burning unsold token. Its good for the price and reducing supply in market. But if used for development the project or for marketing, i think its good.

some coin using unsold token as stake mining by POS system , so people will gain that coin if they hold that coin by period

option one seems very reasonable to do considering if you are protecting the investors who had invested in your ICO, by burning those unsold tokens, dumping will be  prevented and also the demand for that token will increase and therefore price of it will go up too, but this will happen only if the team had a good marketing and people were really into it, the hype should live up to the demand and needs of the people to that project or product.

Although the highlighted options are the only thing that can be done to unsold token. But the best is still that the team should burn it, with these investor will have a clear mind about the project likewise this will prevent stability of token price.

Indeed, with loyalty program, holder get reward if can hold like developers team want. Its true effective because with loyalty program, its like developers team guarantee the project will run and produce a good product. If used for airdrop, maybe anothers dumpers.