Bitcoin Forum

I often read and heard about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project was finished, I also knew that by burning the rest of the token was a strategy so the price of the token didn't fall, but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime? is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?

yes, and that is indeed a common strategy for a project, for reasons of increasing demand because goods are scarce and prices are increasingly expensive, and that is for projects that are running and developing, not for dead projects. there is no general requirement to burn tokens, it is only to make investors who join have hope that prices will rise sometime and there was no massive dump carried out by their team from unsold tokens.

Not for the price not to fall, but there is token allocation chart drawn which the team had already agreed to on how and where each allocated tokens goes. So trying not to burn the remaining of any allocated token need to be added somewhere else and not for the team or founder, because that can make investors think otherwise like, are they planning to cheat. I believe it need to be burn.

It's a strategy of the project when it will be able to burned those tokens in exact dates that because people beliefs if they burned the unsold tokens the price of their token will have a potential to increase.

No burning token is not a crime but only one way they should take to keep the project alive. Not to scare you but most of us really like burning token because it will create trust and make price action go up, even not too high. Developer have do something and burn tokens is part of it, please think if developer keep stay with many tokens/ coins they should burn, price will fall even market in good condition.

Regarding the requirements for burning tokens, it doesn't seem to exist. But burning of tokens, of course with the aim of reducing the amount of supply and making the price will be more valuable or survive so as not to drop dramatically like wasted tokens. In January I have read news about SCAVO Technologies tokens that burn from the supply of 100 million tokens to 20 million tokens.

Something like a wrong decision of making a large amount of tokens to begin with.

Also, the value increases once the number of tokens gets lower.
It is a good strategy. I dont know about the details though if they need to go thru some law just so they could do it.
I doubt they need it. It is their tokem and they will do what they want.

That is also one big difference between those ERC20 tokens than bitcoin. Who will burn bitcoins? ;D

It depends. But in many cases such intentions are written in the white paper or in the field of token economics. And yes, when unsold tokens are burnt the amount of them in circulation becomes smaller and this lead to the price stability or even growth in some cases if bounty hunters don't sell everything right after the exchange listing))

The unsold tokens do have to be burned, because if they can't, then this is manipulation for dumps at the exchange price, so the team has the right strategy like that.

it is not a crime because there is no laws in play in this market. we are in an unregulated and decentralized market that anybody can do whatever they want and unless users start enforcing rules, nobody else will. so if a developer decides not to burn anything and instead dump it on the users, there is nothing they can do about it.
you should try not to buy such shitcoins in first place.

It's not as long as they are doing fair distribution that wil not deceived the investors. There was no any requirement for that and that's so simple just send the unsold token to the default address to burn it. that depends on the agreement between investors and dev.

When the project is launched they also split the token allocation and the allocated token for the ICO sale when not reached then they burn the remaining tokens which are not sold so that the distribution should be fair. But their are some projects which shows that they are burning the token, like purchasing the token from the profit and then burning it but actually they are selling their own shares and burn it so this way they take profit from the market and then manipulate it. So burning token is both fair and unfair.

Well I think the burning of unsold token is over hype to make more value for the token , I see the project as a main focus to add value but burning thing has no much effect on price to me but many see it as a way to increase the price .

Burning unsold token is not a crime and its the devs call to decide but burning unsold tokens makes a lot of sense to me and it always help the price of any token

It depends on the project. Most ICOs burn unsold tokens once the ICO has finished, but there are ICO teams that choose to airdrop unsold tokens between investors or keep the tokens for themselves and lock them for some months or years. It's not mandatory to burn the unsold tokens but in any case they must state what they will do beforehand and in the case they keep the tokens they must explain why they make that decision and what they will do with those tokens.

In order to explicitly show that the team and the project is clean, they need to burn the token as favor for the investors who bought their tokens, its value is high and there should be a fixed volume and unallocated should be burned.

It actually depends on the team whether they want to burn the tokens after the sale or not. Most of the times the team decides to burn the unsold tokens.
By burning they often mean to sending it to an address whose private key they don't have. The team usually burns tokens so that the supply is not more than the demand.
This holds the price up in a way. This has become a usual practice now.

It is not a crime if nobody has announced a token burn. Some projects are distributing these tokens to the team members and are freezing them for 1-5 years. Another projects are burning tokens to increase the coin prices, but unfortunately it does not work.

Token burn is good for any project
It secures investors mind that devs would not dump and run away
It also makes even the smallest investor think of a better price when they list on exchange

I think it is always stated in the Whitepaper what decision would be taken

Unless stated, It is not a requirement to burn unsold tokens but it helps boost investors confidence that the team will not dump those tokens on the market. There is also that belief that a lesser supply will help boost the price.

Its their tokens so they can decide what they are going to do with the unsold tokens,burning it will be more benifitable for the investors but if the team is keeping themselves for future use the value of token will get less if the unsold token released into the market for purposes like bounty or airdrop.

It is natural that they will be burned. Investors must be confident in their tokens and that they will not be cheaper. It gives them at least some hope.

Usually that is stated before ICO happens. Rare will invest in a token with huge supply. It makes no sense. You will pay $1 for a token that will be worth 1 cent since there will be issued 100 times more tokens.

The remaining tokens are usually distributed to investors, bounty participants and developers according to the % of Tokens they hold or get burned, some projects distribute the remaining tokens to investors and developers only which is not fair because the distribution of the remaining tokens means that Token price is decreased by default and by doing so and not distribute it to all party involved then you are decreasing someone cut in not direct way. Keeping the remaining Tokens to developers alone is a big no and should be not accepted. Anyway burning the remaining Tokens is the best option and with no doubt will increase the Token price and avoid all the hassle that comes with the distribution.

the headline made me think of burning man token LOL

I don't think it would be a crime for the team not to burn their tokens. After all, no one will follow this. But it is not profitable for them to do so. After all, it is in their interests that the price of tokens grows, so they apply this strategy.

From what i know is dev not really will burn their tokens easily. Sometime they wait for right time to do it or maybe it will fixed when it is on their roadmap. Maybe you can check their roadmap, when they planned to burn their tokens. If not there so we must wait for that moment.

burning token would not give huge impact actually if the developtment progress run slowly, many projects already show us..investors think they need roadmap runned as faster as they want.so it will make new investors interested.

Most will say or even based on statistics burning token supply will even increase the value of token - supply and demand. But that is just a small factor because for me it will still depend on the team on how they manage to control the price I mean on how they will get more hodlers and investors so that their business will grow.

I suppose that you are understanding wrong about if they don't burn their tokens, they are a crime. No, there are many projects don't burn their token when the ICO process ends and it depends on their stratergy and this thing is not requirement

Burning token is necessary, and it can easily be verified. Some projects like Exchange have a long-term tokens strategy to increase the value of the token over time. They use a portion of profits to buy token and burn.

What i understand behind the idea of burning tokens, used to keep the value of a tokens, with lower amount of supply on a coins, it surely able to maintain the value of the coins, cause when the demand of the coin increase in a limited amount of total supply, it surely able to pull the value of a coins sky high.

There is no such requirement, burning token mechanism is usually sold to investors as 'less tokens, more price'.

from the burnt token allocation that was created, it actually can provide good news and can have a good influence on the price of the token because it will definitely be very expensive and that happens because of the influence of the fewer allocations available and it will be very difficult to be able to get tokens. while for the development it depends on the team behind the project and the allocation should not affect the project plan.

Guys do you think the developers of the project burn 20 million tokens, it was written in white paper, burn them on the specified day, the price of the coin should grow? My trust in this project has grown greatly.

And ideal for any project is the rise in the price of a token due to internal resources, and not a decrease in its volume. It is because of this that the token will never be in the top of the list of all coins, and will be used only for profit and immediate reset.

Of course it is an unethical practise. If dev team promises to burn, they must burn. Otherwise, it will be a fact and investors will barely invest in this kind of coin. Anytime dev team may dump those coin. That is why I suggest people not to invest in this kind of coin.

I don't think burning token be the developer is a crime. But more on being transparent to investors that promised a number of coins in circulation are controlled. Aside from this, burning lowers the availability of coins in the market. If supply is low and demand is high, the coin may increase its value in the market.

That's correct to decreased the tokens supply that the coin will have a big potential to increase but token holders is depend also if they put their tokens in the market also. So they can calculate all tokens with the exact supply of burning.

Burned tokens can be seen in the smart contract. So the devs cannot deny burning their tokens if it is what they have stated in their plans. It would be a good sign that the price of those tokens will not drop if the unsold tokens will be burned, so it would benefit investors.

it depends on the initial agreement before it all starts, if they promise to burn the token unsold but in fact it doesn't mean it's a crime, and vice versa it doesn't become a crime if there is no agreement to burn unsold tokens

Its only team decision.
Burning tokens better for the team because it increase price and tema allways keep some part of tokens for developing.
Initially its can be calculated how one amount of moneys, but after burning price up

It is just an act of generosity to keep your investors' faith always high. If you promise for doing so and then not keeping your words must be a kind of crime but not sure how many people will be able to find that devs are not keeping their words. Because burning is just a process of moving the tokens into some other address where they are not able to control the PrivateKey.

Basically, I like the concept of burning out tokens which are unsold as it will prevent the chances of unexpected sudden dumps. But for this to be happening in real life, devs must be honest enough. So, it is similar to just another part of their roadmap as we do see, many projects had come up with many plans but they were not at all following them later on.

I have seen many projects went for burning out their unsold tokens still they have got unexpected dumps. There could be many reasons for this and the prime one must be devs may not be honest as they sound.

This is not a crime, because all projects initially indicate what they are going to do with non-sold coins, and as a rule it is in the interests of the project itself!

In the past I've seem coins with huge max supply and the price was so low but soon after they implement burned tokens the difference is just there so burning tokens or coins is not so bad ,it always change the price of the coin

Running an ICO could be considered as a crime at all. Because ICOs are collecting money without any government license and regulation. So they could do everything and you can't stop them ;). You are sending money to help them but there is no rule that they have to do anything to make you rich ;).

Burning unsold tokens for me is to avoid project's team to hold more tokens and dumping the tokens. It help investors to believe more in the project. If project's team promise to burn unsold tokens but they didn't, it's not a crime if the team can give strong reason. But. of course they will looks incompetent, and probably can exit scam.

Whether the tokens that were not sold during the ICO will be burned or not, the project development team decides. But I can tell by my own example, if the team decides not to burn the remaining tokens, but, for example, distribute them among investors, this will lead to a significant reduction in their value.

After all, it is not written anywhere that after the end of the ICO, the tokens that have not been sold should be burned, as a rule, it is decided by the project teams!

It's not a requirement, but it is often done. The team must be upfront about the percent split of token distribution, eg 10% to devs, 10% bounty, 80% ICO - so if they only sell 50% of the tokens, in order to honour the percent split the remaining tokens must either be burned or else distributed according to those percent guidelines. In practice it is much easier to burn them - because we all know that individual coin price is irrelevant unless considered vs supply.

That's sadly right, the developers can do anything and you don't have any control about your investment, first thing that you did sending your
money to them without any assurance then gambling with the fate of the project, if you are lucky and the dev keep their promises then you will
gained out the project but if not, that's the actual risk.

Participating from this form of investment brings you in high chances of losing your money, be very careful choosing projects.

It's written on their white paper on what the team must do to the unsold token...it is common to burn them and as a investors or supporters on the project you can ask the team about the smart contract if they had performed the burning of the unsold token. This is to make it fair with those early investors who had trusted the project at the early stage and burning the unsold token will reduce the total supply.

Burning the remaining unsold is really a project strategy for the price not to dump really hard when it will going to hit the exchange. But is it a crime when they did not burn it ? i guess not, since this kind of industry is not regulated at all. If they said that they are going to burn it but did not do it at the end, it wasn't a crime at all maybe they just come up with new strategy based on market situation or any market related situations.

Yes, indeed there are some ICOs use this strategy, namely by burning the tokens so that the supply decreases and the price doesn't down drastically. But there are ICOs if the sale doesn't sell out according to the target, then the team extend their sale. but if they don't burn it is not a form of crime and all depends on each ICO policy.

In fact, this is the reason why ICO teams usually decide to burn unsold tokens and this is the common practice. People will always trust more in facts than in words.

yes I understand with your explanation, the love for the presentation.
I think if you have to, that a project must burn unsold tokens, maybe it will have a good effect on the price situation in the market and improve investor confidence.

Whether the coins will be burned will be written in advance in the white paper. If you don’t find this information in the white paper or website, it is better to ask the team before investing.

In the most cases devs are burning the unsold tokens, but unfortunately it does not affect the price at all. If an ICO had a bounty hunters will dump it to -x10 from the ICO price whatever the token supply is.

It wasn't a crime if the devs will never burn tokens for that specific token that they have been developing.

No, there's no requirement actually everyone can burn their tokens by just sending to a genesis address or address that has no owner.

Burning unsold tokens is a commitment from a team that offers them to investors
This gives an indication of the possibility of a rise in the price of token
Failure to implement this undertaking is considered a crime and a breach of contract terms
on the other side
Does this process actually affect the price of token in a bearish market?

What will be done to leftover tokens or tokens that were not sold, is most times left for the developers to decide on what to do with it.
One thing that might put them under compulsion, but not necessary compulsory, is if it is already stated that tokens will be burnt. Then investors might want to hold them unto their words.

But not so many platforms are distributing the rest of unsold tokens rather than burn them all to the market. It looks similar but it has the risk about the possibility to create the more dump to the market dude. I remember some developers have applied that. That depends on how the team manage the unsold token because they have the main key.

Not all ICO do this, because there are some of them only lock it for a several of periods. So there is no requirement that the unsold tokens remaining must be burned. Because burning tokens are included in the marketing strategy, so I think this is not crime.

well you know what, burning token will help to increase the value of token rather than redistributing it. I mean the less he supply.the higher value. The devs would also prefer to burn it because it will help to pump thw value of their assets aswell.

It's not a requirement at all. It's just that the total supply of a token matters to everyone because it can either affect price positively or negatively. So to reduce the supply of a coin and assure the people that the developers are not out to dump on them, they burn tokens.

Every team in every project have different strategy and burning token is one of that. Sometimes team doing  if they see that there's no increasing in that token no one is buying. But I think burning unsold token is good for the every will use that token so all will be benefited.

There is no such requirement and it is not necessarily the best option to help build value in a new coin. One of last year's ICO projects that I took part with decided to use their unsold coins to help integrate new projects on to their platform, so keeping the max coins supply constant and adding value through extra future usage and growth.

There is no crime on that if it's stated in the whitepaper, the team are just being transparent.
When burning, the supply will only decrease but the project will continue, and in fact it could give favor to investors, and it's going to be attractive.

I think that must be done. In my opinion it's a good strategy, so the remaining unsold tokens do not become an investor's question. If it is not done, the project team might commit a crime with the rest of the token.

I don't think it was the crime if the dev have not burn the token, but I am sure if they kept the token and didn't burn it, all the investors will lost the faith in this project, and I saw many time the token will dump in same time.

I think burning the tokens creates a little bit of scarcity and increase demand. If large amounts of token are left in the hands of developers they would have a lot to dump in the market thereby making the token lose value.

So burning some tokens is a kind of assurance to investors that they  won't be dumped or devalued in the future.
I think you can also create thesame effect if Parts of the tokens are locked for a long period of time instead of the burning.

burn is the way that the purpose of the token to the balance value. When the sale is not completely exhausted then the anticipation its worth developers will fall burn token to the tokens they travel better and appropriate estimates. many are doing this and not a crime.

There is no requirement and there is no rule binding on the project team, to burn their tokens. They are to decide if they want to burn or not, irrespective of their total or maximum supply.
In that case, it is now left for the investor if he wants to invest in such project or not.
Although, token burn sometimes can contribute to the price surge of such project, but there are some projects with very large supply, yet they do not burn,but will tell you that the tokens will be used for the development of their platform or in the ecosystem.

It is a general belief that unsold tokens are burnt but that is the prerogative of the Dev Team. That is to maintain a certain circulating volume of the token in the market. But I have reservations, because there is no certificate to show that the tokens are actually burnt. there is no independent erification report when the tokens are burnt. Again, the burning do not guarantee the success of the token price in the market.

Would not say its a crime , but i would not trust the project further after that . There is projects that keep changing whitepaper after ICO , usually i just don't support projects that does not follow roadmap or missing deadlines quite often

Burning some of their tokens depends on the strategy of the team and most of them were written on their roadmap. You will be able to track those if they fulfill their promise by looking on their contract on the blockchain. Burning tokens was very effective on 2017 where the price went up a price but if you will ask most of the investors, burning tokens nowadays no longer have that impact or may take effect when the bull run starts.

indeed this is not a crime, but by not burning the remaining tokens it allows prices to fall.

ok, thank you for the information, I just found out if there really isn't a rule that requires DEV to burn their unsold token

developers actually have two choice with their unsold tokens.first one usually developers team will burn this token and most of investors agree with this action.and another choice was use it as airdrop for token holder.this way very effective to make investors hold their tokens,so price will be stable.

Burning excess tokens will help to reduce the total circulation of the token thereby aiding improvement in the value of the coin.

I guess they might add the token if they are in an exchange project, they can put it to the liquidity pool in order to maximize the volume of the token that can be used in the entire project.

Dishonesty is a crime but because we are in decentralized place dishonesty sometimes are not intentional where uncontrollable and unforseen obstacles could happen unexpectedly. Projects are not the same dishonest, some are really honest to their promises they make it to happen.

Burning of token is a good strategy actually that many projects have been using that yield awesome results, it makes the token to be relatively scarce and price will not be able to dump anyhow.
If a team failed to burn the left over tokens as stated/promised them such team is not a reliable one. This is a team that does not have the community members at heart. And in this case, the community members should be very careful in the team.

in fact it must be done because not burning unsold tokens will have a negative impact on in the eyes of investors, Obviously the project will be quiet in the market so I think burning the unsold tokens is an obligation

But most of the bounty hunters still dump the price of it, even if they burn it. Face it, but that is the common process when the ICO done.

By not burning some tokens is not a crime, because those thing is optional for the team except they stated it from the start. Also, I don't see evidence when the token is burn ( don't have idea about what process they used to be ) .

Where there is no Law, there is no crime. No one made a rule that the tokens must be burnt as there is no regulator for the market. We have several situations where the ICO team share the unsold tokens to themselves, and sell it gradually on exchange after listing. Those are most times the dumped tokens that even kill the price during listing most times. How else would you discribe someone selling a total of 5,000,000 tokens at once at $0.001 per token whereas the ICO price was $0.10? I am sure no investor could have done that. Reason it logically with me. You will find that I am telling the truth.

The burning itself do not have to mean anything. Just a desire of devs to make their coin more scarce and therefore make it less prone to fail. The scarcity, however, might be one of the most important factors in the future. Not burning them after a promise? Well, you can fact-check it in a matter of seconds and the very last thing you want to have is hundreds of investors sick of your manners in this small community  ;D. By the way, some projects have quite unique way of burning- the more it is used the more coins are burned. Is this the key to a sustainable crypto startup? Probably. The decision lays on your shoulders. On the other hand, expect the unexpected and do not throw all your savings into any cryptocurrency ;D.

I think that burning does not make the coin more useful. Reducing the number of coins should not affect the price. Therefore, there should be a need for burning.

No, this cannot be considered a crime, because the team itself has the right to decide how to deal with their tokens!

But the burning of the token will cause the total supply of the token to decrease and make the token valuable and easily increase in the future. Look at the Binance coin, they have done a great job of burning tokens and helping BNB raise prices very much in this bear market

its a good strategy for the token so burn the unsold token so the circulation does not affect the market value. but if the project does not burn it. it will surely turned to scam. because the dev will hold a lot of it.

It is not a crime if the team don’t burn the token. But it is going to look bad on the team if promise was made to burn the token, investors will lost confidence. Most likely, the team will proceed with the plan to burn token.

no, I think that is the result of the policies of the developer and the ico team.
so there is no element of crime on that basis. but if a smart team will definitely burn unsold tokens.

Burning token is a  strategy ico you use when they fail to reach their hard cap meaning they will not allow their tokens to dump so they burn the tokens  to reduce the total supply and avoid inflation it is also done when trying to reduce the circulation of token is also in the purpose of pushing up price.
Although in my personal experience I have not seen a direct implication of token burn on the market but the myth suggests that it helps to reduce inflation and increase the price

I'm also very curious about that, how can we know they will burn tokens? It is very difficult to know exactly that, most of us just participate in trust

what I know is that there is no rule that is purely from the developer itself to increase its existence in crypto, if it is already on the exchange.

I have not seen any requirement that the token must be burned, but that it is included in the project's long-term plan token, because the logic is that if it is not burned then the price cannot be controlled.

As a rule, this condition is prescribed in White Paper.
Judge for yourself - if the tokens remain, and the team just left them for themselves, how can you believe such a project? Likewise, they can take everything for themselves and close the project.

No not for all projects sometimes it can be burned sometimes no so it depends on team strategy but if they promised to burn then it must be done becouse investors have invested because of it too.

burning of tokens that are not sold is just a strategy of the team and DEV for the price stability of their tokens, there is no necessity in burning the token.
and it is not a crime if they do not burn unsold tokens.

Yes, burung of unsold token is a very good concept,it's usually demand the token value and the price of token will also improve if the quality of the token is minimum.

Token Burn is one of the most popular strategy from project to maintain price (in this case after ICO) and if the project team didn't burn all remaining token (Unsold Token) that's NOT a crime. as I said before, Burning Token is just strategy.

That's no specific requirement to Burn all (or half) Unsold Token, that's just decisions taken by the developer (would be better if including Community and Investors while make that decision)

burning token that is not sold is the team's strategy to keep price on market because the less total supply, token price will increase but all will also depend on project development and greater exchange, even if the token is not listed on market, price will increase

Does this actually apply? That when unsold tokens are burnt, price of the token goes up? I still try to get this because I think if this really work, most projects should use the strategy rather than stay dead.

The fact that tokens are not sold must be burned as a requirement in an ICO. Failure to comply will cause the token number to be inflated and the price of the token when listed exchange will greatly affect

There is no requirement by anyone or any law that puts them under compulsion to burn, but if they earlier announced they would burn, then they have to burn.
If they do not comply with the roadmap or agreement made, then they can be seen as scammers.
If token burn is also done, you would notice in the total supply. Also an evidence can be shown, to show the process of the burn.

Burning unnecessary tokens is not an offense. It is for controlling the market price. There is no government to control it here. Therefore, to control the market price, unnecessary tokens can be burned.

It all depends on what the development team promised to do, if they said that all unsold tokens will be burned, then this should happen, but unfortunately in 2018, the developers almost never burned the remaining tokens.

I think it's a good strategy to burn tokens to ico that the supply is big enough to make or reduce tokens that are no longer worth after ico as well as other investors and bounty hunter if the owner will follow the tokens that no sales may raise the price of their coin subit less their supply or will be limited only but there is an opportunity to be more attractive to investors especially if the supply is small so there's no dumper too their token and pure holder will only be left.

I think that is one of the strategy to keep the value of a coins to be high, burning the token means it will reduce the total volume of the token itself.
With less volume, hopefully the price of a token will also rise or it can be keep in a good level of price and not making it drop.

What would you say is the maximum amount of tokens that should be burned? I saw that Bithumb has a Super Coin Week going with Valor tokens and will continue with "surprise" airdrops the next few weeks. Apparently they are burning 25% of the remaining tokens. Is that no too much? Or will this just result in an even higher value for the holder?

There are also projects that choose other strategies, store unsold tokens or freeze them for several years with the aim of developing products. But I think burning token is the most rational choice for investors to maintain the value of their investment

Burning tokens is part of milestone in development. dev have to do that, if not they will break investors trust
the effect is just investors lose trust and make the coin wont be pump in the future or even become shitcoin

It is not part of 'crime'. you know crypto hasnt fully regulated now.
So, the bad thing which happen in crypto not included in 'crime'

Burning tokens creates scarcity and gives value to the rest of the available tokens. There is no rule that says projects have to burn unsold tokens. It is just common sense to do so as it brings more trust to the project

I also heard information about burning tokens that were not sold when the ICO project ended. This is terrible, but that is one way of helping token prices, but it will cause another bailout.

burning the tokens can be a good last resort, but if the DEV and the Team don't burn it could be a crime. The remaining unsold tokens should also continue burning.

Its not a crime if team decide not to burn the remaining unsold tokens in ICO or IEO, this choice is left for the teams to make but with my past experience burning tokens is a very good effective strategy

It's a pretty good strategy of projects to stabilize the token value. This approach can save projects that are about to die and may make them even more developed.

Burn or lock the token for many years, maybe? I totally agree that not burning the tokens may be considered a crime if the developers hide them from investors for their selfish interests. By the way, the spending of the extra funds should be done democratically assuming the coins belong to the community.

Know this first, that the team has the right to decide anything, except it has been written down and legally binding. Most of the times, what the team promises to do might just be for the sake of attracting investors, because I have seen most of these things changed. Also, token burn event(s) need to be done strategically before it can be effective on the value of the coin.

Burning of token usually help in reducing the total supply of such token and when the supply is reduced and demand is high it leads to increase in value of token. so i may not be wrong to say that burning of token helps in increasing its value.

Right, you are not wrong in answering about burning tokens, because it is very helpful when tokens have been burned which automatically causes the total supply to decrease, but there are also tokens that have been burned but the value still does not go up at all because the request does not exist.

Burning of token is a strategy to stabilize the price in the market. The higher the supply, the lower the lower the price while the higher the demand the higher the price. Therefore, it advisable that sincere team that promise burning, to do so.

Burning tokens is a tactic used to raise prices and reduce the amount of supply available on the market. The economic equivalent of this tactic is repurchase. We can hear from time to time not only the ICO projects or small projects but also many other projects. This process is as follows;
- The project team enters a market purchase order with the specified budget and provides the opportunity to purchase by clearing the existing sales orders one by one until this budget is exhausted. Then, these tokens taken by the project team are burned and removed from the market. In this way, the supply amount of the current token is reduced and the token price increases due to the purchase.
Although the Token burning process is a very successful tactic, not every project team can do it because it is a very costly method.

Its a good idea to burn tokens that aren't sold in ICO but at the same time it depends on the max supply of the token, if its in billions burning will be better, not all projects prefer this but few ones who did have good end results

If the team dev didnt burn the tokens like they promises then it proved the project might be scam or useless projecs. Always follow the projects tha delivered their promises in time and do what ever they promises to investors. Burning tokens is the best because it can reduce total amounts supply and make the price of the token goes up also.

Actually, the team decides what to do with unsold tokens. If they want to keep the price of the token stable, the best option is to burn all unsold tokens, but in case the team is greedy, they might use these tokens to increase their own allocations.

Many projects now focus on this as they do not want to have all the unsold tokens in their hands as community members will think that they will dump those tokens thus the trust will be lost. I also like projects like Binance and Eureka Network because not only they burn early on, they also have buy back and burn policies in place, or burning regularly policies, which help to actually reduce the supply over time and thus make the coin or token deflationary. This kind of practice also adds an added value and is primarily attractive to holders and long term investors because if the projects are successful like Binance, the value of the token or coin can really increase dramatically, even in slow or bearish market.

Its not compulsory to burn tokens left after ICO sales. It's just a strategy introduced to attract customers who will now have the impression that the token circulation will be low and thus translate to high price (according to supply and demand laws). That not withstanding, some projects also lock up such tokens for future marketing and promotion. Which is no big deal

It's only right for the team to burn unsold tokens that way the value of the tokens will not fall except there's a plan of future tokensale.

It is in need to be done because burning of unsold tokens was also part of the project's outline for the whole run being planned by the team. Burning of unsold tokens is done to control the number of circulating tokens which is successfully being sold when the sale was aired and is also a way for the value of the tokens not to fall due to excess supply of the tokens in the market which is not being used since it was unsold during the sale. But burning of tokens can be also delayed after the project has been done if the team have decided to get into the phase two of the project and do the second wide sale of the tokens for an improve plan of the project and make it accessible again for more potential investors to get into their project.

During ICO where total supply is so huge and its always been good to look at if unsold tokens would be burned rather than keeping the big portion of it in side of the team.

This would removed out the possible manipulation into their side yet anyone can dump out if they do have the sufficient supply more than into its investors.
If burning would happen after the ICO or for how many months or years after the launch  of said coin then its also good yet it will cut off the supply and if the demand is constant then
expect for the price to rise.

So far that i know about burning tokens is to keep to price stable. The unslod tokens will burnes due to maintain prce of that tokens. The higher the supply, the lower the lower the price while the higher the demand the higher the price.

burning token is not only to stabilize the price of coins at the exchange, burn tokens will also make the price of tokens expensive and token coins will be limited and it will be very difficult to get them, take advantage of the burning moment in the token or coin as best as possible to be able to get a lot of profit.

there are no official rules or statements about it. there are even tokens that are not burned forever after the ico is finished and the team will only say "the project failed" so that there will never be a burning token.

Isn't it the demand will be going back again to the result of the development progress that has been done by the team? As you can see that so many projects have been buring their total token supply and they are not getting a huge demand right now. stellar is the right example about that could be a failed strategy.

Still the development and progress coming from the team that will lead to high demand, even the tokens will continue to be burned but if there's nothing from the investors interest it will bring nothing to the project. We do see a lot of people who are trying to figure which project to support and they're not looking for burning supplies alone but for real usages.

the project team must calculate first so that it doesn't happen like stellar. in principle, by burning tokens the supply will decrease, and prices can soar, especially with the support of increasing demand for these tokens. but in reality it is not that easy

This rule only applies if the token has at least some value. If this token is of no value you can burn them all.

Burning tokens are not the solution for pumping up the price of the tokens once bounty hunters sell all there tokens it will be automatically dump the price of it. sometimes don't expect it will happened.

Of course it is necessary to burn tokens if their project is not sold out, but we have to ask the team to have specific evidence, if the good team they will tell us all, and if the project is bad they cried but tokens that were not sold out are still there for what purpose, only coughing will know.

If the token isn't valid, they won't think of burning. So it definitely has a certain value. The long-term price increase still depends on the usefulness of the coin.

You have discussed a beautiful topic. Because of this, coins cannot be sustained in the market. And ordinary investors lose their capital. That extra token must be destroyed.

They should provide evidence that is accessible to everyone, prior to the token sale, its already indicated that any unsold tokens should be burn so the total supply will be just the total sold tokens which I think the right thing to do. Developers are selling a lot of tokens to cope up the demand in the market but since its not guaranteed that all offered tokens for sell be sold out, that's where the burning of coins happened.