Bitcoin Forum

I have seen many ICO's selling tokens for cryptocurrencies. What will they do with those unsold tokens at the end of their ICO? Some say they will burn it so no one can use it. Are they burning it or is it really the good to burn those unsold tokens?

If they said they will burn the token, it is really good that they burn the token to increase the trust of the investors, and reduce the circulating supply of the coin. In this way, the price of the coin may increase more.

It is good for them to burn those unsold tokens.
It will reduce the supply of that token that can result to increase in demand.
Keep updated with the ICO you are investing so you will figure it out on what they will do with it.

Most icos burn the tokens if their smart contract happen to support it. If the smart contract is not designed for a burning operation then they will send the unsold tokens to a un spendable address whose private key no one has and there are many dead end address in ethereum blockchain where the money sent cannot be ever retrieved.

depending on the project and it's modus operandi,  they could decide to burn it or keep it. Some do distribute it to the investors

This depends and varies on the project dev and their plans
Most times, such tokens get burnt upon decision of the project devs

So research about the project and reach a viable feedback

Some ICOs they will burning the unsold token or they use other activities to acquire more investors, i will agree those unsold token will be burning to decrease the supply of token and the project will be more popular to the investors and the token will be more valuable.

It depends on the strategy founded by the founder. they can burn unsold tokens to reinforce the value of useful tokens. Or they will continue to keep it and make airdrop programs in the future to promote the project.

You will be notified about this in advance. Burning is definitely better. You know what it means to reduce supply.
I have seen projects that divide unsold coins among all the addresses, but I did not get good results from them.

That decision rest with the team of the project and most of the time they say they would burn it. I think it's a good idea not to only burn the surplus tokens but to also burn the circulation amount to give the value to the token in the long run.

I've known such project in the market that transfers the unsold token in to their liquidity pool (if they are an exchange and the token is considerably a utility token). In that case, there will be no burned token, all the tokens will going to be used and might circulate on the market. Still, there is fairness that we are looking for.

most of them will eventually dump them on the market and make a lot of profit. some may do some fake things by burning some of these tokens but in the end it all depend on how much tokens they own themselves and how much more token they are left with. if they have more than enough tokens to dump and know that anymore would kill the market entirely then they will surely burn them otherwise they will dump those too.
the whole point of ICOs is to make money easily through their token dump.

I doubt many ICOs don't usually burn those coins but rather send them to an unidentified bitcoin/other address from where it cannot be recovered while other scam ICOs dump their coins at a low price making that coin worthless. Some other ICOs use the unsold coins for future ICOs but that's again fishy as that ICO doesn't usually take place and they end up using their coins to dump them.

I think burning tokens will be the best option. because it will reduce the total supply and the value of the token will increase, which is considered a positive news. When there is good news, it will attract many new investors involved in buying and selling tokens when listed on exchanges. That will increase the volume for the token.

Unsold tokens are a threat to the price of the coin and burning it can solve the problems that can be a barrier to the future development of the project. After the listing on the exchanges, it becomes harder to maintain the price stability.

Normally any remaining tokens from ICO sales should be burnt but it depends on the devs plan ,if you aren't sure you can get the white paper for the token to find out

This is quite tricky though. If you are a holder of that token, you should know how to track the number of tokens. If they say, they will burn the unsold ones, they should stick to their plans. You should follow through if they are true to their words. If not, those tokens will be in their possession and they might just sell it once the dust settled.

for me the icos have already gone out of style.  :(

Usually the unsold codes passed through ICO will be given on exchanges after being listed. Also, there are other options such as The development team will burn all tokens that cannot sell through ICO. Or maybe the group will use the Token number divided equally for all investors based on the percentage of investors token hold.

Well actually there are different things the team do with unsold tokens. First, the might burn therefore reducing the total supply. Secondly they might share it among all investors and thirdly they might lock it up for future development of the platform.

This is something to be determined entirely by the DEV team. And they write this token contracts. For this you can look at the contract of the token or you can look at the project's whitepaper.

I think the most fair one would be the burning of the token that was not sold or a proportional dispatch to the purchasers.

Some devs keeps the remaining unsold tokens for the teams use and some devs will surely burn the tokens which I really think its the best for any coins or tokens and moreover burning unsold tokens will drastically increase its price

Yes it is true, but there are also those who do not burn it, but it is still sold in the exchange market, because there are many ICO projects that throw prices very far from the ICO price, and I suspect that Dev did it himself. Because ICO is currently full of fraud.

Mostly the team announces to burn the unsold token supply and also provide the link to track the event and some even go further step and provide the third party audit that confirms everything the team told to investors, this is the way legit projects and professional teams operate but if you look at some fake or scammy icos they will just sell the extra tokens on exchanges and blaim may be the bounty hunters for the dump but infact they are selling massive supplies themselves to make extra bucks for themselves before the exit.

Yes, they should burn the unsold token from the circulation to bring fairness of token holders.
But some ICO sometime don't burn the unsold token, they put the token into liquidity pool.
I think such decision will discouraging investors who bought their token. Burning token is the best option.

The unsold tokens ought to be burned after icos and that is what many of those ico projects developers has done specially the genuine one.  The fake icos will go to any exchanges and start dumping those unsold tokens for any amount as their interests are to get funds through fluadulent means.

It depend on what are the plans of the team after ICO but most of them are burning the said unsold tokens but some are not and may use for future.but the team must be transparent to the community about the status of those tokens because it may use as dumping materials and the investors will surely suffer in the end

Burning can be benefitable for investors,if the project team keep those unsold tokens for themselves which can decrease the demand for that token so burning is the right thing to do.

Usually, community members demand for a burn to keep the supply reduced and fixed. But in some circumstances, I have seen where unsold tokens are either distributed to buyers or kept for future promotional services

There are a lot of ways of what to do with those tokens. You can burn them to increase the token value. You can hold another bounty programme, you can do a massive airdrop for the token sale participants or you can make a trading competition with big prizes.

There are quite a number of things ICOs can do with unsold tokens, they can burn it, reserve it for future purpose, airdrop it to the community. But the best thing to do is to burn the tokens, because it will reduce the circulating supply of the tokens and in turn increase its price.

it depends on them what they will do,but mostly of the projects they are burning the unsold tokens

Project that says if unsold tokens will be saved for future development funds (in my opinion it's very suspicious)
Project that says if unsold tokens will be burned (I strongly agree and will fully support because this will reduce total supply so that the price is higher)

If any Project act according to its roadmap then it is good sign of trust and looking promising team and if it also burn the unsold coin/token then it is good for investor as it will reduce the coin/token circulating supply and in resultant the coin/token price increase when it go live in exchanges.

thats right,
then, when the number of tokens reducing this mean the supply become lower and if this happend the demands will increase,,
but for a good project of course,, and when the demand increase thats mean the price will rising ,,  because the law of supply and demands

There are 3 common things I know the team would do for unsold tokens based on my experience.

1st, they do burn them for lowering the supply so the price of the token could catch up to its incoming demand or else the price would be lower than the ICO price resulting to angry investors.

2nd, they distribute it to its holders, so even the price is lower it is still ok for some holders and if the project go moon it is still win for the investors. This phenomenon is rare and it will only occur on a very promising projects but still not all of them will experience this, only a small chance.

3rd, they will reserved it but they should be transparent on where the tokens would go or else it would be suspicious if the team would keep it for themselves and not for the project development.

You can always see the supply if they really burn it, this is a common practice they should burn the unsold tokens if the team state that they will only keep this portion of the supply, then they should burn the unsold tokens, ICO that does this gain trust from their investors, it means that they want equal share.

on average they burn it. but there are some projects that have chosen to lock it for several years, then sell it.

of these two options that are more profitable are those who set them on fire. this makes fewer tokens available, so this has the opportunity to raise prices.

It depends on the plan. Case would happen if they could reach above the softcap, usually they'd burn the tokens so they could control the supply and stick on their roadmap. I think it is good. Tokens are allocated even before they would conduct the initial sale, if unsold tokens would circulate, who would use those? The team? It's bias.

yes they usually burn it. I don't think that's good or not, but it must be because this can cause investors to be scared. many are predicted if the token is not burned, there will be a dump. To get rid of this thought, it is natural that tokens that are not sold must be burned.

As my experienced, there are only 2 ways what team do to unsold tokens. They will either burn it or just distribute it to all holders in a fair way so somehow all holders get some profit to it.

I have seen almost ICOs burning unsold tokens. It's good to decrease total supply and to increase value of token. But some projects will use unsold tokens for marketing like running airdrop campaigns for holders.  

Much depends on what is written in the contract. If now we can see with you that people really took this operation into account in the smart contract, then of course we can say that it is generally normal and the tokens are really just burned.

Most of them are burning these tokens.

But also there is some greedier ones. They keep that tokens for themselves or looking for a second ico.

if they burn their unsold coins it is a very right decision in order to maintain the quality of their coins. but I see not all projects do that. so we need proof of the project that really burned their unsold coins to make them more reliable.

Yes mostly projects burn the unsold tokens but thats not happen all the time. Its good if they burn the unsold tokens because it will decrease the total supply of the coin directly increasing in price. But some other projects choose not to burn those unsold tokens rather use it for developments and emergency purposes.

Different projects with different ways of dealing with their unsold tokens. They can burn the tokens off, airdrop it to their community or reserve it for future purpose like emergencies, marketing, etc. Each of them have their effect on the tokens, the burned tokens will decrease the tokens total supply and therefore have a corresponding increase in the value of each token. While airdroping the tokens will increase the circulating supply which will give the tokens more liquidity but could also have a adverse effects on the tokens price.

Yes, almost all the projects are coins that are not sold and projects that are worried about the price of their coins, burn not sold coins.

many projects prefer to burn it. but there are also those who choose to lock it for several years.
but for me, the better are those who burn it. by burning unsold tokens making fewer token supplies, this provides a greater opportunity for future prices to rise. and maybe I'm not the only one who agrees with this, because people are more aware of projects that don't burn unsold tokens

If they are really to go by their policy, they are actually meant to burn these tokens to limit the number of supplies but I think some of these ICO, not all though don’t go by these, some of them use these remaining token to crash the price of their ICO by dumping so that the price of the ICO can crash and will limit the ability of the investor to dump the coin because after they dump these remaining token.

It will make the price of the token go far below the ICO price, but I think it is better to do these and still be able to control it back after their project is fully established than for investors to dump the coin.

You understand that when a project has many tokens after selling tokens, this significantly affects the price, that is, there will be a surplus of tokens on the market, and by burning tokens the price stabilizes and corresponds to the sale price or even higher.

Depending on the writeup from the whitepaper, usually, ICO projects burn tokens that are unsold. This helps reduce the supply in circulation while also improving the potential value of the token price

I think to burn tokens, this is the last choice for all ICOs if they have not found an accurate solution after making some of their efforts and most importantly they must continue to follow the first commitment as stated in the whitepaper by having the target in accordance with the negotiated start possible in doing additional distribution it is an obligation to distribute in other ways I think it will be very good after that if you don't find a good solution then they will burn it.

Burn it, to reserve the value of the tokens. Other way than burn may resulting the dump of the token price
because usually the amount of unsold tokens in most ICO nowadays is very massive.
IF the dev not burning the unsold tokens, im afraid the damage price of the token will become irreversible.

It's a good practice provided that they really burn it, it's good for long term profit, small supply means good profit for early holders of the coins, but we still have to look for the platform, I don't care if they burn it or resell it as long as they are dedicated to push their platform, it's all about the platform for me.

I dont think that most of the ICOs were selling the unsold tokens yet, but they are doing more opportunities by selling once more.

Burning is the best what a project can do to keep investors happy and hope for good fortune.We have already seen thousands of projects failed and even to get listed.I too have a load of shit tokens and the projects had vanished.Moreover we see that times are changing slowly from ICO to IEO and the game is played little differently.Crowdsale was much more safe and good.

Whatever is stated in the whitepaper and in the road map. If the whitepaper states that they will burn unsold token, then they should burn the tokens after ICO or they will lose credibility. If they say they will lock it for future use, then it will be locked or frozen. You should read the whitepaper of any ICO so you know what they intended to do with the tokens. It is due diligence.

The unsold tokens are either added back to the main pool for further development or better still they burn the unsold tokens. All these decisions would have to be made by the team based on the stipulated plans that they have made concerning their ICO but i prefer they burn to reduce the total supply hence increasing the value of their token from time to time.

Some will burn, some will keep it circulated depending on Ico's itself, Burn was the best option in my mind, with burning the tokens will have an effect with supply and of course the price of the tokens itself.

Some project burn unsold token others only create tokens that will be in use which the total supply,burning of token gives the token a good value.And it is the best decision to control the value or quality of the token.

Depends on the project owner and what it listed on the whitepaper. They usually just burn the unsold tokens or they give the rest as a bonus to the investors.

Actually they always explain it before the ICO start, what will happen to unsold tokens and etc.

yes. some teams will decide to burn, or distribute by making airdrop, or the team can also extend the sale of tokens. but. professional teams always pay attention to sales and registration strategies on the exchange. if the team's orientation is a benefit, the team will register the coin in a large exchange, even if the coin is not sold all. like odem.

The fairest option for unsold tokens is to burn them.

This will defend investor's interests, because the price should increase as total supply will decrease.

you can check it, because there is a mechanism for burning unsold altcoins.
usually the team or developer will announce on the telegram network. I think you need to explore a lot for your knowledge and experience, especially in investing in ico or participating in campaigns

It all depends on the projectsvand their plan of actions. Some usually burn it off in order to reduce the total and circulating supply of the token ehy some keep it for other activities within their project ecosystem. So there's no fixed down rule on what to do about it.

Correct. They will usually try to go for a burn option first to make the supply smaller and therefore all current holders expect to see value go up,,, but this never works in my opinion because it assumes there is already demand, which there is not.

I have definitely seen ICO refunds happen and cancelled,,, then they just switch to airdrop and distribute tokens out and hope that it gets listed and owners can dump it anyway!

Burning unsold tokens is good, meaning the token will not be too much and I also wonder why the token has been burned but the price is still below.

It is better to burn those unsold tokens so the value of the coin will increase and those who buy it will totally be sold their coins because of the increasing value of it, they will get profit.

I agree with this, burning unsold tokens really gonna help the project directly. But if they write it down on their whitepaper that they will burned the unsold tokens they must do so to avoid confusion and for the community to trust their words.

Usually they burn it!

Not really, they can just hold it more if they think the price can increase. Unsold tokens usually will get burn but if the ICO is not reach softcap, then the project and the tokens will canceled, no more unsold tokens lol. The sad is there are always unsold tokens on every ICO, because investor no more invest on ICO again.

Different things or approach for different ICOs, while some burn the unsold token thus reducing total supply others tends to share it as bonus to all investors. Those who share theirs as bonus most times causes the price of their token to crash as investors now have excess tokens to dump.

They normally burn the unsold tokens to prevent inflation or lock it up for a specific number of years for thesame reasons.

Burning is the right thing to otherwise the developers could dump the unsold tokens in the future and crashed the price. An alternative to burning would be to locking the tokens for a long time.
.

For exampe bluenote project keeps there unsold tokens stating that it will be locked away for future use either from the teams or for the project development but I think the best way is to burn the tokens it will help the price of each tokens as the max supply will get lower

In fact, professional teams act differently about their tokens. Some unsold tokens burn, while others release all tokens to the stock exchange and then buy their tokens for a certain period, thereby reducing their number. I do not know which approach is right, but nevertheless, professionals know their work.

I'm right, but it's normal if they don't burn unsold tokens that will make a problem. investors will be afraid to buy because the team may suddenly sell all unsold tokens to the market. this is very bad for the price of the token. I prefer projects that choose to burn their tokens.

I think some of the projects do airdrops with a certain percentage of unsold tokens while most burn the coins .
Some not too honest projects will say that they have burned the coins only to dump it on investors on listing to an exchange.

there is differennt options. they can burn them. they can lock them on years. or they can say that they lock them and than sold them on exchange and get more money

good projects burn unsold tokens, but I know many projects are speculating on it and selling their coins for little money

They must tell the community what are they going to do with those unsold tokens in the white paper before they begin to sell their tokens, however there are many options that seems to be fair, one option is to burn them, to send all of those coins to an address that no one has access to, this reduces the supply and it makes all the other coins more valuable, so it is an option that is good for everyone including themselves.

Another good option could be to just distribute those tokens in proportion to the amount of money that you invested, so everyone receives more tokens than what they paid for, this is also a fair way to solve that issue.

Each project has different design. Some promise to burn, some for give away and airdrops, some for developers and some set them aside as reserve depending on their plans. Some said they burn but I don't know if they really do because at some point their mind may change and also their plans so who knows. In the other hand burning unsold tokens gives advantage to the token value because of limited supply it will have.

Some other ICO-owned coins have many questions. But many explain that coins will be burned. There are projects that are in accordance with the procedures they run and there are projects that fail. This failed project is like committing fraud, which they say that the rest of the coins will be burned. But what happened was that the project was not developed and failed.

Unsold token is normally get burned, they need to burn it to secure thier investors asset, it is really the things that ico needs yo do to less the token circulating supply.

Many ICO project will burn their unsold token but some will lock for the specified time. I have participated in many ICOs and and all of the project always burn unsold tokens.

they will burn it by send to this address: https://etherscan.io/address/0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Burning is actually supposed to be the best option and immediate burning after ICO so that the developers don’t get the chance to hold any of these remaining tokens that might in the future tempt them to dump on the market.

I believe reason why some of these project don’t get to see the light of the day or we see a massive pump and dump is because some of the developers with bad projects are also using the remaining tokens that was not burn to manipulate the market, although I know that even if they don’t do, investors will do so, so they use these remaining token and dump it on the market before investors do, but a very good project would not do so.

Under an Airdrop strategy, the investor’s share of the total token supply is always higher when compared to a burning strategy. The only exception to this, is when every single token is sold. In this case, they are equal. Do it's either air dropped,  burn or keep.

Yes of course it is really a good thing if they burn the unsold token.
It is good for their sake. The token value will not dump if they burn it. But if they decide to reselling the unsold token,
i dont thinkn it is a good way to handle the unsold token. Burning is the best option for me.

I completely agree with you, because the practice shows that all the companies that burned unsold tokens had better results than others.

the decision might helps of chance on investors to keep on projection as managing plan on longer terms of shifts with the interstitial sequence as the use of resource on efforts as defining numbers of target to commit as work on modulation within the spheres of timelines on attains within field of business with the bitcoin projects.

It is good for investors and for token price after ICO that unsold tokens are burned, because there will be smaller circulating supply which means scarcity of tokens in the market. If you find project which burning unsold tokens or coins you could be more sure to have at least ICO price at exchanges, but that is not allways the case so be patient and carefull.

but it is important to release locked tokens based on the exact time calculation. like some projects ico also performs token keys for bounty and airdrop as well as for developers and their teams. those who get tokens only investors and traders on the market, it looks better for investors. moreover if the unsold token can successfully burn, it will affect the supply on the market.

If they promise to burn the unsold tokens in the whitepaper, then it is their duty to carry out that promise. If they are not doing that, then the reputation of the project will get tarnished beyond any redemption.

depending on the projects, many decides to burn token if it became unsold while some choose to keep it for future references. Also others may decide to to distribute it to the investors

Yes, it is good to burn the unsold tokens so that the circulating supply of the coin will be reduced. In this way, the value of the coin will increase and it will make the investors of it happy.

As a rule it announced before selling, what team going to do with unsold tokens. More often those  tokens burning, sometimes team can give it to investors or make airdrop. It better when tokens burn. It is increase their valuable.

There is 2 ways will be happen:

1. They'll run an airdrop for token holders

2. Burn all unsold token

With the first way, I think it'll help price of token won't be dumped cause everyone will keep holding and wait to get airdrop.

With the 2nd way, it can help price of token increase a lot because of decreasing in total supply but sometime it can't and price of token keep falling after unsold token being burned.

Usually every unsold coin will burn or will be distributed in airdrop or they can just leave it.  whether it's burned or not we don't know.  but actually if they actually burned their unsold coin it would greatly benefit them because it would make their coin prices go up and there would be many people who were interested in buying their coins.

Released to create more supply that will cause the value to crash or have a short growth ?
I see no reason why any unsold token to be held by these project developers.

It is either they give it as token in form of airdrops or bonuses to investors or bounty hunters so that there will be no concentration of such token in one person’s hand that may cause a major dump in the market, and cause the other investors to lose their funds.

If the project is true by their words and really wants the project to continue to exist, all these tokens really need to be burnt.

Okay, may be that is possible if they want to save the unsold tokens for the future development but I think it would have been very nice had they gotten all their tokens sold in an ICO but since it has lost its popularity and people look at ICOs with a dubious eye, for the tokens, it is the only option left with the startup companies to store them. They need to focus on the project development right now.

most times when tokens are not fully sold they usually get burnt and other times they are usually kept but locked for future plans such as development purposes. At times they keep it just so they can use it to drive the price of their tokens after burning so as to reduce total supply amd increase circulating supply. 

Burning the unsold tokens will give a lower supply and if that coin become popular, the demand is higher therefore the price will increase significantly. Simple supply and demand thing. Lower supply, higher demand = higher price.

There are some ICO's that prefer to lock the unsold tokens for future development of the project. You can track the total number of tokens using etherscan as long as you know the contract address of the token.

It depends on how it is defined. Coin burning is one of the options which reduces the circulation supply. They can make additional coin offering or have the unsold coins in the reserve fund, but it is needed to be defined preciously.

Most times it is burned to prevent further injection to overall supply or maybe kept for promotional services. Investors will rather prefer the burn because it will help control circulation supply and price

Most ICOs burn unsold token and shows proof to investors. This will reduce the amount of ciculating supply which could signigcantly help the price increase easily once there's good market acticity.

Its true and mny developers team hold the unsold token for the future development. I am prefer agree if developers team burn the unsold token to reduce total supply in market because this could increase the price. Sometimes developers team have their own thinking for the project

That depends on the policy of the team. because each projeck is different. there are those who burn and there are also those who share again with their investors.
 but right now, most of every projeck burns unsold tokens. thus, it will maintain trust in investors and will also make prices go up later, which is expected.

Mostly they will burn the token, that would help to increase the value as the total supply decrease.
One project I know that share the unsold coins to their investors was the EON (Exscudo), the ICO price was higher but since there was a sharing it decrease based on the value, big investors will benefit if the project will of course grow.

What do you mean exactly mean of the term"burning"? Is it like you are going to dispose it like deleting files from your computer and directing it in the Recycle Bin? Please enlighten me. I thought from the very beginning that if a token was unsold during its ICO the team will perform a crowdsale or whatsoever to sell their coins but if there are still left then they still include it in the circulation but of course they are the holders. Hmm, probably I'll make my own research about it to feel relieved.

Indeed they will burn the tokens if there are still remain unsold after sale, but now anyway maybe people will not invest on ICO and only will invest on IEO probably and on coins with a history.

yes some of the ICO will burn their token when the sale doesn't reach hardcap so all unsold tokens will be burned. yes, in my opinion it's a good idea because it will add value to the coin and also minimize the use of the remaining coins from the ICO.

Most of the project owners will burn the unsold tokens in order to hype the price of their tokens. The lower the total amount of tokens the bigger the chances that it's price will boom in a short period of time.

This kind of strategy is pretty useful upon seeing many projects that are burning their extra or unused tokens. Other projects also are using the extra tokens for their marketing so they can make a use of it. But burning it is the best option and will have a good effect to any project in the long run.

Most ICOs these days burn the unsold tokens in order to decrease the total supply to bring about value to the cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency as an asset gains much value when there is a low supply of it and this is the reason why most ICOs always decide to burn unsold tokens. However, other ICOs also reserve such tokens to promote their project in the form of airdrop or bounty programme.But i have also been wondering, why don't they just generate few total token supply so that there would not be the need for burning.

every ICO project has a different way of treating unsold tokens, there are some that are well-established and some that save them for the future
it all depends on the project how the agreement was started before the ICO began

It's true that it really depends on their team before ico has explained. and most ico prefer to burn unsold tokens to maintain prices when entering the market and also the trust of investors ,indeed there are some who share it back to investors but the impact is a large decrease from the price of ico

Almost all projects apply this because it is the easiest strategy to make their token more valuable but actually burning tokens only affects the value of that token in a short time and Then everything will return. If the project is really potential and mentioned by everyone, the price increase can be maintained for a long time so I really like the information related to the burning of tokens because it is often very profitable for me

I think there are not many ICO projects that do it now. most of them actually airdrop for the most token holders who will get unsold token distribution. there is no reduction, but they use unsold tokens to develop their projects.

It's not appropriate and fair to investors to save them in future. It will make their investment less valued. Burning of unsold token by sending it to an address which doesn't have a private key/ no owner is the best solution.

My advice is better for now, do not buy ico coins, because most ico are unsuccessful during the presale period. And these coins only become rubbish or invaluable.

You suggest not investing with ico, are you sure? ;D
you yourself use a signature and invite others to invest with ico. stop making jokes, and you just make everyone smile. the more ico the better and the scam or not it is a risk.

indeed some of the projects will burn their tokens and i think that will be good,
it will support the price of their tokens to be better on the market.
but some of the other projects decided to give free to their token holders as gifts to keep holding it.

Some ICOs will burn the unsold tokens and it is good that by this way, the total supply will decrease while it may increase the token price. But some other ICOs airdropped the unsold tokens instead of burning the tokens. It depends on the result of the ICOs whether the team decide to burn or give them to the community.

Usually ico will burn the unsold token. Because if they burn it will make the price of their coin increase. But there are project who naughty they said they will burn but they dont burn. They sell it again. So it all depends on the team they want them to do if the unsold coins.

This depends on the company, some people burn currencies periodically, and some prefer to use these currencies at certain times for development, and some take advantage of this and sells these currencies to earn some money

Actually we can check it on the smart contract right? or not? Well i don't know how is the burn token works but i guess you still can check it if the tokens really burned or not. A good project and team will be honest and burn the token directly as they said, shaddy stuff like that will makes investor run.

I think ico would conduct an airdrop campaign to distribute the unsold tokens and to spread the popularity somehow. However many says that unsold tokens would be burn so that the supply of the token would reduce and also the price may have a chance to have a good value.

I thought, burning unsold tokens would be the best decision. thus, existing tokens are in accordance with investment funds. this of course can maintain the quality of tokens, supported by the experience of the developer of the token. I think airdrop isn't bad, but of course it can damage the balance of tokens with the funds collected.

Burning unsold tokens is really what we need to push and encourage project developers to do. I don’t know, maybe it is just my mindset, I usually don’t trust projects that does not destroy the remaining tokens after ICO, I feel they end up becoming a shit project and may not be so reliable for a long term investment.

Most people usually feel that there is a possibility of these projects dumping the coins on the market later in the future when they can no longer continue with it. So they use this method to crash its market, blame it on investors, so they would not be blamed and seen as scams.

burn tokens and make Airdrop really have its own advantages, so it all depends on the condition and plan of the developer.
but I think it's better to develop their tokens first by thinking about and hastening to register on the stock exchange.

the tokens that are not sold in the ICO will certainly be burn, from the various projects that I follow, the correct tokens are burned, but some of them are not sure, whether the tokens are actually burned or sent to different parts, I strongly agree with the list of all  , if unsold tokens will be burned and reduce existing supply

I think this is a pathetic scenario and the reality of ICO that a token is burnt because it has no demand in the crypto space. To be honest, IEOs should have been introduced in the market long ago because ICOs have been doing great damage lately. Anyhow, holding the token is not bad because it could get its demand increased after sometime after its projects is improved and such projects which have been weak in the crypto market could be improved by eliminating the flaws.

I don't have any idea with regards those unsold token aside from get burned. If really doubt on that thing try to us some bounty manager some experts regarding your problem, so that your mind will get calm and understand well.

They don’t even have to send it to an address, they can easily just destroy it, I don’t know what your man up there is saying, why would they hold any token, in this market where we have lots of untrustworthy projects developers springing up on a daily basis, if I am to participate in a project, and part of their policy is not to burn token, I will never see myself participating in it.

Majority of this ones that has promised one thing or the other and given reason to hold it will not keep to their word in future, I see they are just using the coin as a destruction tool for the future. So, let them all burn the unused token, and stop telling us stories that touches the heart.

The decision of unsold token varies among projects but the most common one is burning of the unsold tokens which is carried out by sending the token to a wallet whose private key is unknown making the token to be useless for ever. Aside from that, some do distribute it among higher holders as Airdrop while some do take it back to their reserve tokens this are the few I know....

It seems to me that burning a token is the best way out for everyone, because if you take into account the developer and all investors, the increase in demand for the coin and the reduction and quantity necessarily leads to an increase in prices.  but nevertheless it does not apply to those projects that are resources for the purchase and sale of certain goods using their tokens.

in most know cases, of ico having unsold token, the token are always burnt. on the front end that is what is known or probably what we are told. o the back end, you cant really tell what goes down. in few cases, i think some project carry out airdrop instead of burning out the unsold token.

Unless they have a proof that they burn for their tokens at the same time its a good decission from people to increase up the price of the tokens once it get listed from exchanges.

Often times,  what has been most common has been to burn the unsold tokens.. Although, some teams have deem it fit to use some of these tokens as airdrops for their projects faithfuls who have been standing with all through. Nevertheless,  the most obbious is burning.