Bitcoin Forum

This year some new things happened in crypto! The initial sale system changed to IEO, there was IAO, IGO and so many new model, but only IEO lives! However, my point is not that!

This year the Deflationary Ethereum based token based projects attracted me well. In every transaction, a certain amount of token will be burned automatically and the supply is very limited for every deflation project. The BOMB, Blockburn, Nuke, Bags, Blast, Fuze, and so many projects have come, but what happens next? It seems only BOMB and Blockburn project survives, others all likely dead or scam!
The idea was very unique, then why they are not making a success? What can be the reason guys?

Because all of them were using the deflationary function to increase the hype not the utility of the token.
even the survived projects are not doing fine either because the real use case of this deflationary is only creating a hype because of burn.

It wasn't unique. Before all these tokens came out and started the hype, a project called Equal started this deflationary token model. If I am not mistaken, Bomb just increase the rate per transaction and probably have a better marketing team. When other devs saw the instant success, they immediately copied the concept and made some tweaks to make it their own.

It was only a matter of time before the hype fizzle out and I'm glad it happened sooner than I expected. You see, a lot of these projects are just focusing on the demand and supply. The assumption is that the lesser the supply, the demand and price will increase but there's a problem, they are not Bitcoin. They're not the first crypto, they don't have the first move advantage, and they probably do not have anything else to offer other than being a deflationary token.

Wake up man, scammers are manipulating you over and over with these hypes, thats "the reason" these projects go how they do haha
they dont mean SHIT, thats the plain and simple, in time BTC itself will have all these features, these alts are just to make devs rich in the meanwhile
if you think projects like "BOMB" are surviving, maybe you should give it more than what, 3 months? :P lol

So, having unique ideas is not enough. It's one of the main factors for success, but it's difficult to keep the project alive when it is single. Team, and enough money for promotion and listing. Do sale in binance, so even the unique idea will be worthless.

If the sole feature of token is to be burned then yes that is a scam. LOL. Just think of it. If only thing that gives value to token is that it get burned and nothing else. You dont need to be Einstein to figure this out. It is like Ponzi scheme.

IEO was introduced to public like half a year ago and the biggest exchanges are not delivering past profits. Just look at the last Binance IEO that did not even cross the sale price and is now trading below its IEO price.

Just making a deflationary token isn't the sole factor of the equation. There are many others aspects that need to be taken care of if you want a healthy and sustainable cryptocurrency economy. Bitcoin has a PoW consensus and a limited supply. That combination with many other properties like being the first cryptocurrencies, it has already been adopted and supported by many parties around the world + its technical features and the possibility of continuous development on and on top of it make it the king of the crypto space and a viable store of value with a powerful economy that has the potential to become the first global mainstream cryptocurrency.

I am glad that these shits are dying too early! They have nothing to show the crypto world. I was in the Nuke group, man! Those admins were sick or psycho! However, I don't know how did you think the Deflationary idea was good. What they have actually? Nothing but the limited supply and burning rate, is these are big deal? No! Soon or later they all will become shit coins.

Not all deflation tokens are good infact they are mostly useless because they have no real use case, bags is lagging behind with no better liquidity i guess its same result will others as well

Most of these projects were created to make money on the wave of hype around the deflationary model. I think that if the creators set the right goal, then everything would be fine, and not the way it is now.

To me i still can't understand what makes BOMB a very good altcoin, deflationary is not a real use case yet BOMB really brings smile to the faces of the early adopters, i see no reason of existence at all

All deflationary tokens with no real use cases are scam, in the end those who invested in them will be disappointed, the burning of max supply is what gives these shitcoins value, no real use case, nothing but zero means of existence

What does IAO and IGO means? I only know three of them, STO, ICO, and IEO.
STO stands for Security token offering
ICO for Initial Coin Offering
It doesn't mean that because they burned tokens it will attract more investors. Possibly those tokens that you've seen aren't so popular that's why they all became dead.

I didn't see any reason for BOMB to exist and still don't see anything but a shittoken fomo value for it from the people who don't question what's that even for. None of these projects have anything else to offer and only reason that they exist is because people don't look under the hood in tech or question what problem does it solve. Also what even would be the planned endgame of these? Just exist to gain more and more artificial value without offering anything new?

I think the hype was basically on the model because of its uniqueness and novelty. However, there was no established advantage it has over other token models asides in curing more cost for the owner who have to use much higher gas in transactions.. Also, other token models can initiate a burn whenever they please, afterall, XLM just burned 55b worth of tokens. Furthermore most tokens built on the deflationary model turned out to be scam which made the model more notorious

With the recent XLM token burn (and many others actually), you should raise a question about who is in charge of determining the supply. The emission rate should be "set in stone" or unchanged so that the users won't have a similar problem with the central bank debasing (or playing with) its currency.

Then if the emission rate has been set in the genesis, you will see that the negative emission rate is terrible. Why? Because users will find their balance decrease over time, hence making it impossible to be a store of value.

You have a point but BOMB have been around for more than 3months already, this doesn't mean anything though, apart from the present hype in the project nothing else

I expected this model to fail because honestly apart from the deflation system of most of this projects, there was no real use for them. The deflationary model was a good experiment which can be used in a project with more used cases

Many new projects offer something new to investors but due to intense competition and also the weak ICO market, many projects cannot reach sales targets or fail to launch. I think the deflationary model is a good model that has proven successful projects in the market but I think it still needs time to develop and make investors aware of their potential

To say the truth BOMB token brings huge profit for those who are able to get their hands on it either through airdrop or invested at the time, these type of coins are indeed very risky and they are good for just a short period of time, because of the deflation ability it will be very hard to kill its HYPE, this is why people invest in it and it has no real use case apart from its burning option

Burning token won't do anything if there's no demand. You can burn 90% of the total supply and if no one wants that coin it's as good as dust. Even the deflationary model itself is already crippled from the start. they just rely on the misleading thinking that if there's less supply means higher value of coin makes their coin useless that's why I always disagree to this kind of burning model it's just stupid from the beginning and only exist to cripple the coin. If the coin is really good and at least have its utilization even if there exist 21 billion supply it will still hold its value. So yeah, it's basically a failed model just don't bother if there's some coin offering this kind of model.

To say the truth deflation idea is not bad at all, this can drive more investors into a new project with deflation implemented, what people wants is some kind of assurance of making huge profits and no doubt deflationary tokens can deliver it but presently that is all they have, it would have been better if they have other use cases as well and they will become unstoppable

the reason is quite simple, marketing done by the team is very lacking, if marketing is good then another reason is the chosen exchange,
although doing IEO but choosing an exchanger that has a bad reputation will be in vain.
both of these are the main reasons why many projects fail despite having unique ideas.

right, exchange determines the success of a project, especially for situations like today, where market conditions are poor, a project must have high confidence to attract investors, and the choice of exchange will answer the investors' trust. besides that it must be supported by a team that already has a good track record

OP is promoting his own shitcoins here, you all fail to realize this. Anyway onpoint fact is that deflationary model came from bitcoin and that was where it was supposed to work but then many altcoins started adopting it and using it as a buzzword to promote themselves. What they did was make a bad impression of cryptocurrency in general and ended up being pump and dump.

Whatever Initial offering is done, rest is same as always. They are shitcoins, only good for short term gains and quick sales. They have no long term holding value so do your own research before buying them.

It happened because the token or coin that was developed was not so popular and was just looking for sensation so that investors came to make prices so inflated, but it happened only temporarily. if a project is managed in a balanced manner with a more interesting product and the creation of a new idea, the deflation method should work optimally in accordance with the target achievement of a project. Reducing the supply of tokens doesn't mean it's good to do, I think it should be more focused on the products and marketing strategies, so that the supply of tokens or coins is still needed.

There is not enough money in the market to add value to every good project. Look how many ICOs/IEOs are released on the market every day. The projects themselves should consider it. So, not all of them but more attractive ones are chosen. Developers should wait for prices to rise, so the result is no regrets.

Although the BOMB and Blockburn projects are good, there are other factors that make them unsuccessful. This factor is the interest of investors who want to invest their capital. Investors choose to remain silent and only trade instead of having to follow IEO which always fails and many fraudsters. IEO that fails a lot is usually IEO that listings in a market that is not known to many people and does not have credibility that can be trusted. Try if the IEO listing in Binance, of course the project will be many in the lyrics by investors. And finally, the marketing power that is done must really convince investors to be able to invest their funds.

I have my own opinion and hope that it convinces people about deflation.
Of course, everyone loves deflation for this small financial market, we can save a lot of money if we know how to manage capital well.
But where did deflation come from? that is when the economy is underdeveloped and goods seem to be in excess, and the supply is also reduced and then deflation.
As for the crypto market, everyone wants to buy bitcoin and the demand is plenty and the supply is also decreasing after 4 years. but that only happens in bitcoin because it's famous and has HIGH BUYING DEMAND.
And for new projects, we really don't see its potential and can't trust their team. Therefore, no demand and no deflation occurred.

That's true Ethereum base deflationary tokens are just sprouting like a mushroom everywhere. the one thing i don't understand about a deflationary token is when the token was already running out by supply what will happen to the platform. if theres is no token creation?? that's why i think all of those deflationary model is just after the money and no other use at all. in crypto the pioneering one has the advantage to lead, like bitcoin that's why we can compare it to the first deflationary token "The Bomb token" which is gaining its value versus the US dollars.

Would you mind pointing out those things that make the cryptocoins unique? Have you read the project whitepaper and Roadmap to know if the projects are actually of quality and viable? Seems you are more interested in profits than what the project can offer
By the way, Their names don't sound too unique/professional/convincing.

You are wrong. BOMB and BVlockburn did really well. Blockburn gained up 125% in this week, you can search it on CMC or even in Coingecjo! I earned a good money through Blockburn, people bought at 0.04 but they are selling at 0.09 USD! If you have a look at the BOMB telegram group, you will know they have such an active community, even the most active telegram group Tip room is presented by the BOMB token, so I not should hope on these projects where I am losing money by holding Ethereum/.

Unique? If actually the idea was unique why would several projects spring up in the space of little time each with almost the same concept?. The reality is, they aren't, they were all products of hype, and since we humans love hype we rushed into them and most if not all of them dealt with us. A unique projects is never backed by hype but by what it stands to offer and this is where all these deflationary tokens failed; each has a little difference from the other.

The funny thing is that burning tokens, while it could lead to an initial increase in price, later doesn't mean anything anymore because the project hasn't delivered anything to satisfy those who bought as result of the coin burn.

Most projects doing coin burns have failed in the long run. It's so obvious that you can't save your project by decreasing the supply.... it means that the economical model you chose has failed, and this generally can't be reversed.

The developer and the staff already plan to burn those tokens in which will still relying the support and demand of many here in the crypto currency community. Also, the investor and traders anticipated the possible deflation as they want a good output having a great value of token in the end of ICO.

Deflationary coins seems to be based on the fact that over the short term, people will be inclined to purchase the tokens with the expectation that in the very near future the supply will be reduced enough for them to turn a profit.

The emphasis here is not development, but rather pure speculation.

So there is no surprise that most of them have failed thus far. I think a far better model would still be the disinflationary model, which BTC operates under.

The deflationary coin system was just based solely on hype and nothing else, because they were built so that their hype would keep increasing as the token's supply dwindled but just like everything that had hype in the Cryptocurrency space, the hype eventually died out.

I can understand why BOMB is still standing since it has absolutely no usecase aside the fact that it's deflationary but Blockburn seems to have a usecase apart from the token burn and last time I checked and this is probably why BW agreed to list them, anyways let'sj just see how it goes, if they would still be standing by this time next year.

In crypto, there is a hype tthat goes along with every new concept which tends to fade off after sometime. For such concept to continue its survival, continued development and upgrade in its working is needed. In the case of deflationary tokens, the hype is gone hence many dead deflationary token projects, only with good usecase, clear road map, and continued development will keep them surviving till next year. I see Bomb and blockburn going through 2020 as the teams of both project as maintained a very high level of professionality and focus on the development of their projects.

Deflation feature is a very good move for coins and tokens but they are not been used right, all these tokens you made mention have no real use cases and supply reduction is the reason they have value which is non sense

just want to inform you all im in a special group of blockburn they are working secretly on something is not done in crypto history and gaming. just keep een eye on blockburn i spoke to tony and got some inside and it looks like this is going to be massive if you read this ask for tony in they telegram chat community does not know they did not came public with it yet. 1000x from 50k marketcap to 500mil it is possible i saw the doc files .
just giving you guys inside tip buy and hold

When you understand the law of supply and demand then it is very easy to explain why this happens, those tokens are controlling one side of the equation, they are reducing the supply and that may seem to be a good idea but there is one big problem they do not control the demand.

It doesn't matter if something is really scarce if no one wants it then it holds no value, so all of those projects have that huge flaw and unless they gain a huge level of popularity then you should not expect those coins to gain any significant value.

Haven't heard much about the other projects you mentioned so I won't be basing my reply on them instead I'll reply based on the knowledge I have on one of the example you mentioned which is BOMB. Although this is a success based on what you presume successful project to be but I think it's a ticking time bomb waiting to explode. The only reason why it hasn't failed is because it's still been hyped but others have lost the hyped that brought them into the limelight.

For starters, the deflationary model is just a speculative model without any real life product as the project utilizing this model just promise a continuous increase in price of their token, which to me is just another form of ponzi scheme since the only factor causing the increasing of price is a promise and no real life adoption or usability.

Because they plagiarized the previous idea had BOMB and others just follow without having a mature idea to compete with its predecessor. They scam because of the exhaustion to compete because they only intend to listings and are popular on the newly emerging idea. And now such an idea is no longer popular because of the many of his rivals who appear to have such.