burning token

[ginobitcoiner]

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

[Sri rahayu]

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

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

[yescrypto]

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

[Malamok101]

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

[herurist]

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

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

[raden1922]

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

[Reid]

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

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

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

[andrejka]

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

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

[herdiansyahdanang]

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

[Red-Apple]

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

[marks1976]

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

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

[susila_bai]

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

[Msworld83]

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

[Callanta787]

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

[bartolo]

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

[Debonaire217]

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

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

[pawanjain]

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

[dipeco]

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

[OluwaTosin10]

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

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

[Bttzed03]

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

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