Bitcoin Forum

Between developers and Investors, who's responsible for the AltCoins that goes dump or likely to be ghost coins in total disappearance even from the market cap?
Rumours goes around that it's the developers intentions while some says it's the Investors impacts that determines how much active the and stable the AltCoins could stay in the market cap.

So, who's responsible when the Coins dies?

Speculators cannot ever be held accountable for the fate of a coin, they care about one thing and one thing only, and that is to make money with such coins, if the coin were to collapse soon after it then they do not care about it, and it is even unlikely they may find out what happened as they are quick to move onto the next coin that could give them profits.

Then it is obvious the ones that can be held responsible are the developers, as they sold a vision of what they wanted their coin to become to investors and speculators alike, and at the end they failed to fulfill those goals.

Many factors are responsible for the death of those coins if that is the right word to use and many are intentional, while others are not intentional. It is intentional when the developers are attributary to this, it might mean that their intention was to scam initially but later changed their mind when the project gained some relevance, or they are just waiting for the right time to abandon it and get away with the money. But in some cases, it might just be their negligence and not particularly caused by their bad intentions. This is why we need to be careful in the selection of our crypto projects to avoid asset loss. At times too, it could be due to too many issues that are beyond their control, it may be legal issues, the lack of cooperation among the developers or financial constraints.

The investors are a contributory factor at the same time. You see, what makes all these cryptocurrency projects to appreciate in price is that people lay importance on them and invest their money in them. But if a project has been wasting away for too long without good relevance and capital inflow, it could cause some chain reaction on the negative side (bearishness and little or no activity) that will lead them to become a redundant coin/token.

In my opinion, it’s the developers. Think of investors as consumers or customers or clients. They need to avail products or services that are of good quality. They will buy it no matter how expensive it is as long as they think it is valuable so if they think the product or service is no longer valuable then they will stop buying it making the demand shorter.

If the developers did everything but develop the project and promote it properly then that is on them and not on the clients.

IMO the devs cause the lost hope on their project and let it die which is why it turns out to be ghosted and this happens only when they feel the project doesn't worth holding on it means devs know the project is not unique but still they went on to launch for making profits. I don't blame the investors because they put their money on something with only hope of getting returns, when it doesn't work they likely to save what's left in it.

Personally I think both are responsible, some developers want to develop the coin some developers want to scam it. Whether the developer's intention is to survive in the market depends on whether they act honestly or dishonestly. Every investor wants whatever money he invests to have no loss and enough money to fill his pocket from the invested money. Meanwhile there are also investors who just want to get more money for less money and indulge in risky investment, we can't blame the developers when the project gets involved in scams. Before investing in the project, one should go through all aspects of the investment. You go in there knowing what's most likely to happen. Invest where you understand the good position, for example how much you doubt the developers of bitcoin, ethereum coins. When the coin dies only we raise our fingers in one direction. We must invest in places where we can calculate the profit by counting the taxes on our fingers, where there is no need to blame anyone.

re are multiple reasons why a coin dies after few years of its existence. One of the primary reason is developer not innovative with the project. That leads to community selling their coins and existing from it. The other reason that I found most common is that there isn't any actual usage of the coin or unable to solve the real world issue. As of now the narrative is focused on meme coin and a few have been able to sustain their model but most new meme coins are not getting much hype and attention as developers hoped for when they started the project.

A very interesting question is why a project owner should bear this risk where an investor will take all the returns of his investment.  Before investing you must invest carefully as you must bear the investment risk in this case Project Owner will never take responsibility for your dead coins.  So an investor should invest in the project very carefully planned and fully prepared to take risks.

It's both. Imagine someone having the power to have the number of tokens that they have, increase, and maybe get it in an early stage and they can move it around. Once they are able to see the coin listed in a big exchange or it's in DEX, they wait for volume and then they just dump everything. This is with the price going down but not dying.

The main responsible for the coin dying is going to be the developers. It's up to them to continue improving the project.

depends on the cause if its investors dumping their bag to the market then its investors fault, then if its due to lack of development or there's security issue with the project that causes money to be stolen for example by irresponsible people then its devs fault, even though its not necessary always devs fault its really hard to know which fault it is to be honest, unless there's clear indicator and reason why the project tanked so hard it goes to zero.
like for example with the case of ust, the peg value lost because the entire system of the over collateralization of ust itself is flawed so some people take advantage of it.
even then it caused chain reaction that causes luna to tank also, this makes so many people lost the money, the court are the ones to determine which fault is this anyway.
same thing can be applied to other project, whether it lost value because investors or the devs there's need to be proof of that.
also, different category of alts might differ in reasoning.

Maybe for me its the developers since in order for the project to remain alive they must continue to work for the progress of their projects. People got their interest intact if theres lot of development and improvement on one's use case. So if ever they are just doing nothing then how the demand will increase? Community or investors are just there they will stay if potential is imminent.

What can an investor do if a coin is not doing well?

It’s not like an investor should keep holding and wait for a miracle to happen. It’s up to the developers to keep the project afloat as much as they can. If they created a project then it should deliver and that will be the only time where we can see investors actually get interest. Investors can then grow speculations to attract more investors but again if the project does not meet their expectations then it’s all futile.

I think the developer is mainly responsible for dead coins because if developers fail to maintain the coin, abandon the project, or the project was a scam from the beginning, the coin could end up becoming a dead coin. Investors only have a minor impact or contribution; if they lose interest, sell off their holdings, or move to other more promising coins, the coin could lose value and eventually become inactive. Perhaps investors wouldn't do that if developers responsibly did what they should do for creating the coin, maintaining its code, implementing updates, and often promoting it to potential users and investors.

     That's just a simple explanation; the question is: how do coins exist in crypto trading? Not through investors or buyers who will buy the coin. And when the buyers of coins disappear, for sure it will gradually lose buyers or traders who will conduct trading activity.

     The buyers or investors are the oxygen of the coin so that it can exist for a long time or just for a while. Even if we say that the developer is doing good development, if there are no investors who are attracted to the coin, that coin will also die for sure.

Both developers and investors have their own responsibilities in token price movements, but when a project becomes a dead project, then it's entirely the developer's responsibility. Because the rise & fall of the price or MC of a project is normal, what makes the token price rise is the development that occurs and the trust of investors.

The main responsibility is on the developers; they failed to upgrade or develop the platforms, and they failed to properly promote their platform to the community, the developers if they did an ICO, should have funds to keep the platform moving, and investors would dump the token if there is no development or the roadmap failed to complete in time.
The developers should keep the investors and the community properly informed on the development and it should be in time because investors are quick to dump and trade it to other new tokens.

I think we the investors are responsible for the dumb coins. We are investing in these type of coins because of our greedy nature and limited knowledge we are not being able the recognise that which project is a spam and which is a genuine project.

These type of people will never stop and they can only be catered by not investing in their projects so that their confidence level may drop.

Why do we often see projects that have not achieved their goals, which we later call scams? That's because new ideas aren't new. The developers, having started their project, are simply lost in time, not knowing how to introduce new interesting, and useful innovations for a long time. What remains for investors? Just get rid of the coin so as not to be left a fool. I believe that developers need to think through their ideas not only at the initial stage but also consider all the bad cases that may happen in the future and ways to work around these cases so as not to end up with another dead project.

marketing staff?  if not for the developers and investors then marketing staff after all they are responsible for making the project well known to the crypto community. but most of all, they are not supposed to create a coin that isn't well planned and has no study.

if they know there isn't going to be a big community that will support a project only meant for a store of value purpose, then there is already one that exists. they have to come up with something new.

I think that developers and investors can be responsible for the death of a coin or token, it just depends on the angle from where the coins meets it's dead end. Most times it's from the developers end, some will have the intention of exit scam before the project is launched in an exchange, the first set of investors, including them will make profit, then when more investors starts to buy,  the project will then die. Other times if a project doesn't live up to it's hype, investors will see it as a shitcoin, and that might be the beginning of the end for it.

the related people :)

It includes holders, creators, MM,...

But in this space there are so many cases that there would be no serious concern about that subject if they were not the top altcoins (FTX, LUNA,...)

But anyway, maybe from the beginning you should be realistic about the risks, don't expect the benefits to always be on your side. So as always, let's encourage everyone to learn about Bitcoin so that they don't lose money the issue of responsibility behind the failure.

I think the person responsible for the failure of a project and the death of a token is the project developer, but what happens now is that if the project stops and fails, the project developer disappears and is not responsible for what he has done, maybe just that they deliberately created this project just to take the participants' money.

Everyone.

Both are involved on it but you know what's impactful? the move of the developers and that's because the investors are only relying to the decision of the developers. And with every first touch, it is the developers.

Devs obviously.

The scammers, just create lots of shitcoins to confuse and steal the money of investors by making counterfeit every trending coin such as Memecoins and NFT as well, they are the main reasons why altcoins investments are not recommended for newbie investors because they are putting a lot of hype in their projects and in the middle of nowhere they dumped it and leave their investors waiting for the price to rise again which will never happen and it turns their coins into dead coins with no development, updates or whatsoever.

We have our targets and I'm never going in for these fast rising projects, instead I'm focusing on important races. Projects failed when the team didn't put in enough work and most of these projects that failed are mainly cause by the incompetent tasks carried out by the developers. We know how porous it is nowadays to bring in top coin, which is mainly a memecoin. Pumping and dumping are two different thing, one brings a faces of joy while the other does brings sad faces.

Both can be said to be responsible but I’ll rather pawn it off at the developers than the investors because if you develop something that is outstanding and you are constantly maintaining it, you will definitely have investors who believe in what you’re doing. Isn’t it how Bitcoin grew? If the investors leave, it’s very likely that they are losing faith.

In my opinion, the essence of responsibility is the coin owner (developer) because the creator can only be told (team), when he gets a reward then leaves. As long as the developer does his job well for the community, and is not concerned with enriching himself, it will survive more especially if the funding rise can be managed by continuing to be added, I see that from time to time there are dead coins that fall and are not injected with liquidity so that they are drained and the marketcap of a coin is getting worse. I agree that it is not entirely the developer's fault, they sell their coins and there is no coercion, as for the fomo that eats away at investors, it is entirely the logic and decision of the buyer's speculation.

However, I think there are still many who buy from the beginning, it is a risk when you get a profit that is beyond analysis, as well as the opposite when a dump occurs on a coin. For me, it is suitable for hit and run even if it only saves a few minutes, because for stable coins it is better to choose coins that are old and have good daily marketcap volume.

Think also some dead altcoins that are still pumping even they are very long time dead, this means some are just manipulating it and we are not sure who are they , could be whales or developers or founders just to make some money off it or some could fully exit.

With my little knowledge of understanding, I believe you because the investors are like stake shareholders while the developers are the co-owners. So considering this fact, it's the responsibilities of the developers to enhance the coins services with every required technical and maintenance factors that has to bring values to the coins.
I think the investors were basically attracted to invest in the project based of potential speculations about the project and failure to attain those values would cause investors to disembark from the coins and therein the project could slump
So in all ramifications, the developers are responsible.

There is no specific reason for the death of tokens. If you go back years ago, you will find that Coinmarkcap contained many of the leading tokens at the top, which have completely disappeared now and been replaced by other tokens.

Perhaps the reasons for the death of a token, in my opinion, could be due to wrong decisions made by its team or developers that led to its collapse and death, as happened with Luna. It is also possible that the token team, which owns a large percentage of its supply, might dump it if the primary motive is fraud in the first place. Also, the incompatibility of the coin concept does not align well with blockchain in terms of use cases, which led to its downfall. The lack of attraction and interest of Investors or the shortage of liquidity for the coin's team to continue developing their project and paying employees’ wages and marketing campaigns to promote it or pay its listing fees could also contribute. Also, the coin may be exposed to massive protocol exploits or smart contract vulnerabilities. There are countless other reasons, but what I see is that most meme coins are susceptible to this inevitable death and transition to zero because their projects are fragile and lack strong foundations.

 I think, developers are the responsible for the failure or dead of the project, because if the developers do everything possible within their ability to improve the project, it will make the project to attract more investors that will continue making the project popular in the market to last long. Investors always look for where they can be favour in a particular projects, and if the project is not functioning well in the eyes of the investors, they have the right to switch to another project that is doing well but if the developers of that project can develop the project for investors to see with their physical eyes, it will be difficult for the project to die quick. That is why many coins are still bringing favour to their investors, because their developers are at work to ensure the coins causes their investors massive income to earn in the future.

The developers involved in the death of the coins are definitely responsible because they may start their crypto journey with weak infrastructure and attract few buyers. Then various errors and deviations in their transactions are detected which are manifestations of their infrastructural weakness. In many cases developers may fail to provide professionalism in their work. But I strongly believe that most of the altcoins in the crypto market only come with the purpose of deceiving investors. Therefore, investment in altcoins recommends different protection requirements.

I think the developers is the responsible for the death of the coin, because investors only buy coin that they think has a future, or give them profit and if the developers do nothing with their coin to improve then the investors will not buy and the coin will become shit coin or dead coin at they end, but if the developers make a good use case then it is possible that many investors will come and invest and it can make a high demand of the coin and possible it will rise.

None. :D
Why none. Because at the end of the day, a dead coin will remain a dead coin.

Developers? Investors? If a project becomes a dead coin for example, who will be the one that you're finding if investors lost their money? You can't find those developers because at first place, they didn't reveal their identity. I can't remember a project that became an abandoned coin for years, and got resurrected again and there are new developers that continued that supposed dead project. Some might say the developers are the one that's responsible as to why. So what now if they are? You will find them and put them to jail if you lose your money?

If I will choose though, I think it's the developers because they didn't do everything they can for the project to become a successful once, it became a dead coin.

Well, definitely those developers and project heads that create them.  If a coin is crappy or too gimmicky, or even an outright scam (and yeah, those exist alright) the fault lies squarely on them! I mean they gotta ship something with real merit, right? Sure, hype and excitement can send prices ballooning for a bit, but no smoke and mirrors can prevent a coin from tanking eventually and 

now about ghost coins - more often than not shady devs make off with the money pocketed from investors.  So really, folks looking to buy cryptos should be darn careful about who they decide to fund.

So the developers could actually have a plan B budgeted that if the current launched coin fades they would swap to other pending projects to cover their lost or I should say providing another scheme to drain investors funds or what?
Clearly and believably, developers are to be accountable because the coins potentials and technical programs were developed and installed by the developers including the maintenance and improvement factors are disclosed to the developers while investors are only individuals who steps up to invest their funds and just let it generate income for them and if the Coin is doing well they can accumulate on DCA but if it doesn't lucky ones would always cashout before those dramas of system crash as the developers inabilities to build a solid blockchain with potential coins.

Coins die for many different reasons. Some just lose interest, others the developers give up, other get hacked or exploited in some way.

Then they are some which are neither of those but the coin keeps losing value anyways due to poor marketing. It’s  been like this for many cycles and will continue.

Right now every 5 minutes we got some new memecoins which pops up and ends up dying a few hours or days later due to rug pulls.

I think it's the developer. Although some investors can cause a coin to die such as putting in a lot of money to pump up the price and then selling all their assets so the price will fall and the coin will die. That is market risk. But what some developers do is they sell the tokens they own in large quantities when the price has risen thousands of percent. Developers can even sell at any price because they hardly need to spend capital. I have seen people cheated on a coin several times because the developer had sold all the tokens they had and abandoned the project.

I think if anyone can be blamed for why a coin dies, then it is the fault of Dev and his team. However, they could not convince investors to continue investing in the coins they created. In addition, they may not innovate, develop or adapt, thereby placing competing projects above them. However, there must be information or something else that makes investors sell their assets and makes the coin worthless. If Dev and the team have innovation and can adapt to circumstances and make better developments, I think a project or coin will not go bankrupt.

Developers are certainly responsible for the coin's demise as well as many investors. Investors can often feel insecure about their investment capital due to the price environment and may decide to sell prematurely to protect their invested capital. Rumors in the market or any legal complications could make the coins death imminent. Every currency in the market has its opponents who can spread rumors and resort to various scams to attract investors of other currencies to attract their investment. But I think developers should work on improving its technical quality along with campaigning extensively to attract investment from their buyers through positive work.

Of course, it's the developer that should be held responsible for the death of their token/coin. Yes, I know there's that negative effect from the activities of dumpers; especially those who get the tokens from airdrops or bounties. It's the duty of devs to know how to cushion that effect and find a way to discourage heavy dumping. It should be done in a way that buyers can also show their strength while paper hands are selling off. Devs should encourage investors to hodl by putting up incentives like staking to earn and other activities. Again, there should be a good token unlock mechanism in percentage that won't be much as to have a lot of tokens released to airdroppers or investors. More importantly, most of the devs are criminals who intentionally would create scam and worthless tokens just to get money from unsuspecting investors. From start, they already know they're not going to develop that project further. It's just a cash out for them, easy money.

Wouldn't this depend on the coin? You might as well be asking who is responsible of dead products in real life. There can be as many reasons as there are companies.
1: Team don't have enough time or funds to keep on going.
2: Team lacked skills with coding, leadership, marketing or business in general to adapt to ever changing crypto scene and growing with the needs of it.
3: Team ignores the community and don't have enough transparency.
4: Competition did it better
5: No real use case for smart contract or blockchain, no real strategy, 
6: Bad tokenomics

Only difference being a crypto or real life product is that pump & dump groups can't use anything but crypto tokens as "speculative" asset while doing their pump and dump scheme.

the team duh. that's called rugging

in crypto market unfortunately even more specific is the shit coin market there's this thing called rug, this one rooted from the bad intention of the dev or team themselves in trying to steal money off liquidity pool provided by people.
this is where the mistake and blame should be put on the team instead.

i guess if the coins become dead coins due to team have been developing for many years that they are finally running out of money to sustain the development and even after all that effort the coin didn't even make it to meaningful market cap then I guess its due to the project just aren't working out, some project face such problem too, committed and trustworthy team facing the reality that their product just don't have place in the market and as a result bankruptcy and it also spells dead coin. which is quite unfortunate honestly.

but seeing from other perspective it is what it is the crypto market eliminates the coin that doesn't have place in the crypto space.

All of the steps are being done by the developers and the teams that are involved with them. The investors are there only to fund and follow the movement of these devs.
If they've done something crazy and the investors didn't like it and found a red flag to their actions and they've been caught, that's the start of the misery of their projects that they'll never like.

Every project have the tendency of pumping and also dumping, it all depends on the tasks and market caps of the projects. The ability for the project to become attain to the public and basically to the top whales that knows how to place huge investment on such projects. Failed projects are as a results of relenting efforts from the team behind the project and the volatility of the market. Before executing a project, it's always advisable to scope the entire process and thoroughly doing the backup plan.

I feel you may have asked and answered this question, but then...

When a coin comes into the market, what determines its price and how good it is, is it's popularity, and how many people are willing to invest in it? This makes the coin more trusted, more popular, and more valued.

If a coin comes into the market and due to some reasons, people are unwilling to invest in it, it'll lead to it's death and it's dis-listing. But what causes people to not invest in it is definitely a fault in it's programming, which is its developers or its marketing team's fault for not promoting it properly. People won't want to buy it cause no one would want to buy it from them. Although, most of these coins experience a short-term pump and leave, people's little trust in it makes the pump and death easier.

This should be a very simple knowledge to acquire because there no need to even also someone but naturally you will understand it. Ithe general blame must to the go to the developers because they control everything and not the investors. The investors are only following the way the developers program and doing with the project and they have nothing to do with the project so if the project fails it is the developers and not the investors.

Probably they lack of trust the project they have created base what they have done. Though the investors will make the project more important and popular but the developers controls the server and if the project is launched on decentralized system then the investors control the price in the market base on supply and demand. But the failure of any project is from the developers end.

Wouldn't it be the team? I mean they're the ones responsible to the development to the marketing the release after all. Investors are just there to slap the money to the teams hands so that they can use it to either improve/reduce the time it takes for the project to develop or to market the coin itself. Investors rarely have a say, or at least full control of what the coin would actually do moving forward. They have some sway in it, but that's about it. In the end responsibility would 100% lie on the team that handles the coin 24/7.

In a sense you can say that investors are simply the money involved, the brain is the team behind it itself, and the brain is the one that makes decisions on how to spend the money, not the money itself.

If a coin dumps in the market cap,the developer is to be blamed because the project was solid to stand out.You can't blame the investors,the investors are you there to make profit and nothing much.But the principle of supply and demand also keeps the continuation of every project in the market cap.And when the liquidity is low the coin also crash.

My answer is both.

When a team build a solid project, it will attract investors and not just ordinary investors but investors with long term vision and not the ones that will buy and dump everything in the market. When the team is able to raise good amount of money, it will also attract buyers that missout on the project but then even with huge amount of money, the team must have good product to impress and motivated people not to sell even though something bad later happened to the project, it could be bear market or anything negative.

Furthermore, if the team is not transparent, investors will sell. We have seen cases of teams selling coins behind investors back when it was meant to be locked in the first place, some even hide and sell foundation allocation just to lie that they need money for things they will never discuss with the public. When investors and teams relationship is not mutual, there will always be a benefit of doubt.

The developers, team are responsible for the dead of a coin. The investors has nothing to do with the death of a coin.
If the team are able to . market a coin very well, they would make money but whwn the market is wrong or is not adequate, investors woukd starr selling theirnm holding to invest in other good projects thahmt could bring profits.
People would not put their money on coins that do not have good team or movement to double in price with time.

Basically "ALL" coins and tokens would have been high if the market responded well to it, so it is definitely not investors because you can't expect the investors to invest into everything. I have seen some devs who blame the market for "not understanding what they built" because they believe that if the market understood their aim then they would all be investing, but the problem is not the market not understanding it, it is the fact that dev team failed to do proper marketing and explain what they were trying to do.

This is why I believe that we should not be considering this as something big, we should probably consider that as a normal thing. I believe that we are going to get the better out of it, if we are given enough time on it as well.

I don’t think the blame should be placed completely on them. Yes marketing does help and if the marketing team managed to do all kinds of promotion out there surely they will be able to garner lots of interested people.

But a marketing team could only do so much with a coin. If the developers really developed the most useless coin ever in the world. What else can a marketing team do? They will just be called scammers and other names.


 

It can be both, depending of the circumstances behind the launching of the coin and the context which could have led to its demise as a project.
For example, if the coin/project was supposed to be a scam from the beginning and developers just wanted to pocket some money from the wallets of gullible investors, then there is no doubt those developers are to be blamed.
Though, one could also find cases in which the project is actually a very good one, with some case and honest and working developers, but just because of bad luck at the beginning of the project a single entity bought a very important percentage of the total supply, if that entity decides to sell all of it in a single order, then the price will flatline and the investors will lose all trust, some will even assume that whale was one of the developers exit scamming.
As the interest for the project fades away, those developers stop giving support and the coin is officially dead.

As you can see, it is pretty much about how the situation devolves and how quickly it does.

for me, the team behind the project
but investors must know the risk of any investments opportunity
anytime we can lose our money
always remember "don't invest what you can't afford to lose"
regards

Otherwise you're right because marketing team duties are based on speculations for promotions in specific attract Investors.
So if investors comes in to invest in the project and it happens that the coin doesn't have the potentials that attracted the Investors of course the very investors would dump the project.
At most considerate, some project developers has fails to maximize their project potentials in strategies to pin down investors, these developers are most time being too greedy to release funds for project services and once they've spent more than they budgeted, they began to think otherwise on how they can manipulate and recover their expenses through which the system would be crashed.

The development team of the currency should take responsibility for the failure of the marketing system through the necessary campaigns because of the poor quality of tools and developers among them. The marketing and pricing of the useless coin is largely up to the developer team. Investors keep an eye on the currencys future performance and price movements which attract them to invest.Investors make their investment decisions by only evaluating the positive aspects of the currency and helping it move towards higher values.

I think both developers and investors are responsible for the dead coin, it is because if there is no investors the project will not earn funds to make a good development in the future, and if the developer make a project that is no good use case the investors will not become interested on it and it will make a coin or projects dead because no one will show interest to invest.

How can investors be responsible if a coin or token dies? Investors wouldn't keep investing or holding a coin or a token that doesn't carry any weight because the project is dying, they know it would keep losing value over time and it is much better if they dump their share and exit. No investor in the market would invest in a project that doesn't have a future, and that future can only be seen if the developers stay active and keep investors updated with their developments.

I have been a part of projects that died, and I know how investors react when they see no interest from developers and the team and receive no updates and other information about the roadmap and future developments of the project because they know they are going to lose money if the project dies.

Exactly you have said it all. The developers are the ones will make the project more transparent and not in a cumbersome way that will make people to stay away from it. They have to make it in the way that the transaction fee will not high and always low. And they fall to maintain their coins or token then they have to bear the consequences of the dead of their tokens or projects. And whenever there is problem facing the project developers have to look for solution and solve it without delay because right now the cryptocurrency space is on competition so if any project misbehaviour people would just leave it and go to another one.

The genuine developers always look for a way to solve their problem but the fraudulent developers have no clue of their tokens so they let it die. So don't blame investors in any token failure but the developers.

Definitely dev team is responsible for the dead coins not the investors. Dev team must keep engaging with community and make their project interesting enough for investors to invest/hold. If one doesn't feel confidence about their investment, why would he keep holding. So as soon as he looses confidence, he just exits.

Project owners decides how their coin/token could be and if they really want the project to survive they would try their best to make sure the project remain on the surface, where developer comes in is trying to increase the total supply maybe, they would want to rebrand their project and mint more token in circulation. Most times price is being manipulated by whales who are holding major shares of the token/coin at this point there would be some percentage they will dump it will affect the market but if is a project that has stabilized or have a higher market cap then there wouldn't be any serious dump except for the general market forces like news or upcoming events such as having, bull run, and bear season these three things mostly influences the market.

For me it is the developers fault or the teams fault, they are the ones who are responsible for the projects movement, promotion, publicity and even fund management.
The investor could sell their shares, but the team should also have some plans on how they would handle such thing, they entered this market knowing that those kind of incident isn't new, so they should've plan it all.

Developers can be held liable in most cases because they play a major role in marketing and promoting low-quality coins. Even promotions and campaigns are done according to their policy. Skilled marketing team in their strategies and all activities of the investment platform to attract investors. The marketing team must pin their responsibility on market management and pricing. Investors tend to focus only on analyzing the value and future of the currency.

There is not really any other valid the answer, the developers have complete control over their project and they can do whatever they want with it, if even under those circumstances the project they created dies then that is on them.

However, very often I see the developers trying to blame anyone but themselves about the collapse of their coin, and it is obvious why this is the case, as if they are the ones at fault, then how they can promote other projects on the future and gain the trust of new investors with such a stain on their curriculum?

Investors who are disappointed with the development of the altcoin they are holding can express their disappointment by dumping away the coins, especially if they are a big holder so that the investor will get profits from other projects, and developer can also be the cause of the coins being dumped because the initial aim of this project was to cheat, so developers will dumping their coins for their own benefit, that's why we have to be careful with new and old altcoins, because as investors we don't know for sure the developer's true intentions for this project, but often altcoins do provide bigger profits and quickly and the risks are also bigger.

That's right, the main key to the success of a digital currency project is of course in the developers. As long as they have good teamwork and have high loyalty, this will provide success for the project they develop. Investors basically look at the projects they are developing, not at the people who promote these projects.

There will be a lot of garbage in our account later if you choose the wrong coin when you buy it wrong and ivest and what you said is also certainly true, but if financial support to the team is lacking by the main owner, I am sure they will also be lazy to innovate to make increased activities through various advanced programs that essentially make the coin more functional and known.

I think Both are responsible for the declining of the coin's value due to which the coin becomes dead. First of all creators create the coins but don't focus on further development of that coin due to which that coin does not work well and is not utilized for better purposes.

Another thing is that Investors do not show any interest towards the investment of such coins so when there is no demand then the coin reduces more and more in worth and eventually it becomes worthless. Improvement of a project is very necessary so if creators do not work for the improvement of their created coin then its future will be worse.

Dev teams should take 100% of the blame, they just do not realize how much work it is to make a project, and they just think that if they create some random token, and do airdrop, they could get away with a lot of money and then when they get funded they could get better coders and marketing. That's not how it works, not at all, you need to do all the marketing and coding beforehand, so that people would fund you, if you take the funds then it is likely that you are going to pay yourself before you pay anyone else.

This isn't some charity, we are not here as investors to pay you for your work, we are here to invest, and make money and this means that we will see a lot of people that will end up with a lot of trouble on the long run.

I feel you. Investors aim in investing in a project is to make profit and when the coin isn't going hopeful and promising to offer those profits in the future investors would begin think otherwise by withdrawing from the project.
So it'd be the developers fault to had left the system unserviced with the mechanical improvement cordially to respond to investors expectations and failure for developers taking that responsibility becomes an awareness that the coin is going dead.

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

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

It's a bit of both, really. Developers play a big role in the tech side, like keeping the coin updated and secure. But investors drive the market, so if they bail, the coin tanks.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It could be on either both.

Developers.

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

Investors

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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