2 token ICO or 1 token ICO?

[garyn]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

UPDATE NOTE: I want to clarify from the above post. We actually are not going to actually launch two tokens at the ICO.  We are thinking of launching ONE security token at the actual ICO.  Then 3 to 6 months later, once some of our brick and mortar service centers are open and running we will launch a utility token to be used for the payment of the service.  So you now have a security token for investment and utility token for the service centers so you do not have to give up your investment token.

[1715260007]

1715260007

[1715260007]

1715260007

[1715260007]

1715260007

[1715260007]

1715260007

[bolshojkush]

I think everyone doesn't care. People want to make money and they do not care about the division of tokens. The main thing is that the token increases in price.

[bigcash2011]

I think that each project should come up with one token, multiple tokens create confusion and sometimes people wrongly buy the first token while they wanted to buy the second token of the project, i think things should be simple and straight forward.

[ImpaT]

Yea, the one token would be better for investors. People don't like difficult schemes. They want simple profit..)

[usawa0]

It's too complicated. The bulk monitors the price and profitability. It is desirable to simplify everything.

[mr_smith99]

I think one token. With 2 tokens, security and utility you might create confusion

[Qiuyue201]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.

[MrSpasybo]

I think 2 tokens are better for project and platform, 1 for security as IPO, 1 for blockchain payment.
ALEhub, Altcoinstalks, and new projects use double-token-system
Organicco uses it too: ORC and easypayer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3379079

[garyn]

[/quote]
Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.
[/quote]

That is exactly the purpose suggested.  The security token would be to invest in the ICO and company.  The utility token would be only used to pay for the service.  We have a legitimate service and will have a payment processor so that everyone can use the utility tokens to pay for the service.  That is why I believe our advisors suggested the two tokens.  The security token will come out first and then within a few months when the processor is set up and there are service centers in place the utility token will be released. We do have a MVP right now.  This way they can still keep the security token as an investment and not have to use it for the service.   

I keep going back and forth on which way to go which is why I asked the question on the forum.

[garyn]

I think 2 tokens are better for project and platform, 1 for security as IPO, 1 for blockchain payment.
ALEhub, Altcoinstalks, and new projects use double-token-system
Organicco uses it too: ORC and easypayer: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3379079

Thanks for the examples.  I can see that it is becoming more common place.

[IgorShumilo]

These are very interesting thoughts about the division of tokens into two different assets. But now in the cryptocurrency world there are too many scammers and a huge number of completely illiterate people. It seems to me to start, you need to improve the literacy and safety of people in crypto, and only then try to complicate the system.

[Cryptomilz]

I think everyone doesn't care. People want to make money and they do not care about the division of tokens. The main thing is that the token increases in price.

While this is a rather harsh response, it's the honest truth. Like no one cares the number of token types so as long as the prices appreciates in the marketplace upon listing on the exchanges. A project called 'Smarter Than Crypto' has two tokens, STCR and STC, I honestly don't care if they have a third, I want the tokens to be profitable.

[Cryptomilz]

Have you seen the project that used the same method like what have you said above? Spectre, pundi , they are all using that method but it's not about to divided your token to the two kinds of tokens. When you are creating two token don't mean if you can use both of them as security and utility. if that token has no purpose and then both can be considered as security. that depends on how you can build a good platform.
[/quote]

That is exactly the purpose suggested.  The security token would be to invest in the ICO and company.  The utility token would be only used to pay for the service.  We have a legitimate service and will have a payment processor so that everyone can use the utility tokens to pay for the service.  That is why I believe our advisors suggested the two tokens.  The security token will come out first and then within a few months when the processor is set up and there are service centers in place the utility token will be released. We do have a MVP right now.  This way they can still keep the security token as an investment and not have to use it for the service.   

I keep going back and forth on which way to go which is why I asked the question on the forum.
[/quote]

You should also understand the implications of issuing security tokens. Securities are like shares bought, implying part stakes in the company. I hope you have satisfied the requirements of the SEC, because they'll sure come after you especially of the ICO is open to residents of the US.

[mayan251]

For ease of use. 1 token will do. Don't design so complicated. User experience is most important. People want to use your token services simply and quickly.

[SidneyFoley]

One token seems like a better choice, as two tokens can create confusion. Plus many investors dump their security token after ICO for a easy profit. So one token system can prevent that.

[justsimpleram]

One token is better because it can be cause some problem to the investors and people who want to support their ICO and project. And one token in ICO is enough for me so that I can focus where or what should I buy. Then I try to look up some 2 token in their ICO project it have bad effect on their project and sale.

[Mr.Gun]

One token is better because it can be cause some problem to the investors and people who want to support their ICO and project. And one token in ICO is enough for me so that I can focus where or what should I buy. Then I try to look up some 2 token in their ICO project it have bad effect on their project and sale.

Maybe what you say is true it's better to use one token for ico enough so that in the future it doesn't have a bad impact on ongoing sales

[GenesisDominguez]

Not many care if it's 2 token or 1 token as they just care about making profit. But each project should come up with one token as multiple tokens cause confusion which sometimes causes people to buy the first token when they actually wanted the second of the project. It should be simple and straightforward.

[Ranly123]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

Divisions of tokens doesn't really matter. What matters most in creation of tokens is the legality of your project and your sincerity to the public which you are encouraging to invest to your platform.

[warcarft3]

I don't understand the practical significance of doing this. If I am an investor, I will feel that it is very troublesome and even worried me. I only need one token, I can use it or trade them, which will make me feel more convenient and more transparent.

[Davidbaecker]

I think each project should come up with one token. Multiple tokens create confusion and sometimes people wrongly buy the first token while they wanted to buy the second of the project.

[garyn]

You should also understand the implications of issuing security tokens. Securities are like shares bought, implying part stakes in the company. I hope you have satisfied the requirements of the SEC, because they'll sure come after you especially of the ICO is open to residents of the US.
[/quote]

I understand and fully aware of all SEC Regs and Exemptions.  I have owned my own companies in the US for decades and have used various Regs to raise money.  I am just new to the ICO world but I do understand that if we offer a security token in the US that we have to fall under the SEC rules.  And if we did include the US, I think we would us Reg A since it will allow unaccredited investors but will just limit how much they can invest.  I have been reading a few interesting articles that talk about the large market of investors in Europe and Asia and that the US investor market may not be necessary.

[garyn]

I don't understand the practical significance of doing this. If I am an investor, I will feel that it is very troublesome and even worried me. I only need one token, I can use it or trade them, which will make me feel more convenient and more transparent.

That is a fair statement.  And I apologize that I am not saying what the service is now but I will soon.  And we will be very transparent. But here is a scenario that keeps me thinking about the 2 tokens. When you see what the service is, you will see that alot of people are going to want to hold onto their tokens to use for the service.  I really believe that. So what happens if the tokens do rise in value because people see the services they can buy for them and the value of that service.  So now you have tokens that have produced a good profit but you can't sell them because you need them for the service.  Yes you can use them for the service and just buy new ones but you might end up paying a lot more for a lesser amount of tokens.  But if you have security tokens as the speculative investment in the company and some 3 to 6 months later we launch the utility tokens and you have the chance to purchase utility tokens to be used for the service then you still can keep or sell the security tokens as you wise and not have to give us the utility tokens.  And it won't be at the same time.  We will launch the ICO with the security tokens (taking into account all regulations in the countries) and then over the next 3 to 6 months start opening up our brink and mortar service centers and then at that time we will issue the utility tokens.  That could work well and not confused the issue with immediately at the ICO issuing two tokens.

[Matthewmorris4]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

it will instead make the use of the tokens inefficient, fees for transfers, especially if there will be a swap program in the future. People's interest will also be divided into focus, they are confused whether to trade using token A or B ? and finally, your token volume trading will be small

[Muhammad Muneeb]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

people will less intrested in two token ico. i myself will never invest in any two token ico. there will be less chances to make money on that ico adn i expect that every investor will think same as me before investing in any ico like this

[Absolutep]

I feel is better to keep it simple than making a process too difficult for investors especially the newbie,having a token will make it simple for investors to invest in a project without any mistake.

[Adunni6758]

My first question is, which among the tokens would give good profit ir better still ROI, because i believe ROI should cone from the two irrespective of the type of token, whether utility or security token. I believe most investors these days are more concerned about the profit it would bring them. So even though an investor is investing into a utility token, i would first like to make profit from it, then start thinking of buying more tokens or reserving some for any other usage.

[utlptc]

I prefer one token and of course, that will be the utility token. I don't think there is another token needed as named security token, although I am not enough to clear at your point.

[malphite534]

I prefer one token and of course, that will be the utility token. I don't think there is another token needed as named security token, although I am not enough to clear at your point.

It's true for me one token is enough for a one ico or project. That's make you feels like dizzy if their are such more than 2 or 3 tokens in one ico.

[garyn]

It's true for me one token is enough for a one ico or project. That's make you feels like dizzy if their are such more than 2 or 3 tokens in one ico.
[/quote]

Well the one tokens seem to be winning over the two tokens but I want to clarify, it will be a one security token at the ICO and then the utility token will be offered in 3 to 6 months when the service centers are starting to be opened.

[Fedots83]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

UPDATE NOTE: I want to clarify from the above post. We actually are not going to actually launch two tokens at the ICO.  We are thinking of launching ONE security token at the actual ICO.  Then 3 to 6 months later, once some of our brick and mortar service centers are open and running we will launch a utility token to be used for the payment of the service.  So you now have a security token for investment and utility token for the service centers so you do not have to give up your investment token.

Division will make tokens less attractive for most investors, because they do not want to invest complicated solutions. I made my point.

[ivanleon]

As far as I know, the use of two tokens can be due to the fact that they are used for ICO and trading on exchanges, and the second for transactions within the system and has a more stable price. That's the most optimal at the moment.

[paveel90]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

UPDATE NOTE: I want to clarify from the above post. We actually are not going to actually launch two tokens at the ICO.  We are thinking of launching ONE security token at the actual ICO.  Then 3 to 6 months later, once some of our brick and mortar service centers are open and running we will launch a utility token to be used for the payment of the service.  So you now have a security token for investment and utility token for the service centers so you do not have to give up your investment token.

Can you ask your advisors to provide you with examples of successfull projects with two different tokens? I am sure that they will not be able to give you this.

[matico]

One token ICO is enough to getting started withing the plan and execution of such ICO, anything extra is just for some other reason and those reason may be legit and put such ICO in good position. What matter however is the real life case uses of the idea behind ICO!

[oxoxoxox]

I think the two tokens are completely unnecessary. If your token cannot be directly bound to the app, then no investor is willing to buy it!

[Luna0120]

It may be tough call, because I hear a lot about possible regulations for security tokens in the nearest future. In my opinion, it should not happen.

[Hillore]

Probably no one is interested in the number of coins, the most important is their price.

[wareck]

in discussions with my advisors on our upcoming pre-sale and ICO launch, I was recommended to have two tokens.  First the security token that people would buy for investment purpose and then a utility token that could be bought to be used for the actual service that our company will supply.  I thought well won't that confuse things having two tokens.  This was my advisors thinking.  In the case of our company, we are offering a very valid and needed service that customers could pay for via our token cryptocurrency.  So if we just had the one security token, in order to use the token to pay for the service, you would be basically giving up the amount of tokens you used for payment which means you will no longer have the investment benefits of that token.  But if you had a utility token that could be purchase just to be used for the service, you could still keep the security token as a investment.

So what do you all think about this two token theory?

UPDATE NOTE: I want to clarify from the above post. We actually are not going to actually launch two tokens at the ICO.  We are thinking of launching ONE security token at the actual ICO.  Then 3 to 6 months later, once some of our brick and mortar service centers are open and running we will launch a utility token to be used for the payment of the service.  So you now have a security token for investment and utility token for the service centers so you do not have to give up your investment token.

When I invest certain ICO, I do not care about the amount of tokens they have, I care about business plan only. It is the only thing that matters.

[oper802]

One token ICO is enough to getting started withing the plan and execution of such ICO, anything extra is just for some other reason and those reason may be legit and put such ICO in good position. What matter however is the real life case uses of the idea behind ICO!

I think so, one token is enough for you. The most important thing is the execution of the ICO itself, just as you say. It's useless when you launch 2 ICOs but the idea is not good and not interesting, it will be better if you launch 1 ICO and it's maximal in the execution.