burning token

[CryptoTech_]

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 on the initial agreement before it all starts, if they promise to burn the token unsold but in fact it doesn't mean it's a crime, and vice versa it doesn't become a crime if there is no agreement to burn unsold tokens

[Turkish88]

Its only team decision.
Burning tokens better for the team because it increase price and tema allways keep some part of tokens for developing.
Initially its can be calculated how one amount of moneys, but after burning price up

[wuvdoll]

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 is just an act of generosity to keep your investors' faith always high. If you promise for doing so and then not keeping your words must be a kind of crime but not sure how many people will be able to find that devs are not keeping their words. Because burning is just a process of moving the tokens into some other address where they are not able to control the PrivateKey.

Basically, I like the concept of burning out tokens which are unsold as it will prevent the chances of unexpected sudden dumps. But for this to be happening in real life, devs must be honest enough. So, it is similar to just another part of their roadmap as we do see, many projects had come up with many plans but they were not at all following them later on.

I have seen many projects went for burning out their unsold tokens still they have got unexpected dumps. There could be many reasons for this and the prime one must be devs may not be honest as they sound.

[voron83-05]

This is not a crime, because all projects initially indicate what they are going to do with non-sold coins, and as a rule it is in the interests of the project itself!

[Stanlo]

In the past I've seem coins with huge max supply and the price was so low but soon after they implement burned tokens the difference is just there so burning tokens or coins is not so bad ,it always change the price of the coin

[sorrros]

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?

Running an ICO could be considered as a crime at all. Because ICOs are collecting money without any government license and regulation. So they could do everything and you can't stop them . You are sending money to help them but there is no rule that they have to do anything to make you rich .

[rijaljun]

Burning unsold tokens for me is to avoid project's team to hold more tokens and dumping the tokens. It help investors to believe more in the project. If project's team promise to burn unsold tokens but they didn't, it's not a crime if the team can give strong reason. But. of course they will looks incompetent, and probably can exit scam.

[babicena14]

Whether the tokens that were not sold during the ICO will be burned or not, the project development team decides. But I can tell by my own example, if the team decides not to burn the remaining tokens, but, for example, distribute them among investors, this will lead to a significant reduction in their value.

[vova.andreyan.94]

After all, it is not written anywhere that after the end of the ICO, the tokens that have not been sold should be burned, as a rule, it is decided by the project teams!

[Cnut237]

It's not a requirement, but it is often done. The team must be upfront about the percent split of token distribution, eg 10% to devs, 10% bounty, 80% ICO - so if they only sell 50% of the tokens, in order to honour the percent split the remaining tokens must either be burned or else distributed according to those percent guidelines. In practice it is much easier to burn them - because we all know that individual coin price is irrelevant unless considered vs supply.

[Caladonian]

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?

Running an ICO could be considered as a crime at all. Because ICOs are collecting money without any government license and regulation. So they could do everything and you can't stop them . You are sending money to help them but there is no rule that they have to do anything to make you rich .

That's sadly right, the developers can do anything and you don't have any control about your investment, first thing that you did sending your
money to them without any assurance then gambling with the fate of the project, if you are lucky and the dev keep their promises then you will
gained out the project but if not, that's the actual risk.

Participating from this form of investment brings you in high chances of losing your money, be very careful choosing projects.

[Prettymie]

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 written on their white paper on what the team must do to the unsold token...it is common to burn them and as a investors or supporters on the project you can ask the team about the smart contract if they had performed the burning of the unsold token. This is to make it fair with those early investors who had trusted the project at the early stage and burning the unsold token will reduce the total supply.

[Wexnident]

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?

Burning the remaining unsold is really a project strategy for the price not to dump really hard when it will going to hit the exchange. But is it a crime when they did not burn it ? i guess not, since this kind of industry is not regulated at all. If they said that they are going to burn it but did not do it at the end, it wasn't a crime at all maybe they just come up with new strategy based on market situation or any market related situations.

[marcous]

Yes, indeed there are some ICOs use this strategy, namely by burning the tokens so that the supply decreases and the price doesn't down drastically. But there are ICOs if the sale doesn't sell out according to the target, then the team extend their sale. but if they don't burn it is not a form of crime and all depends on each ICO policy.

[bartolo]

Burning unsold tokens for me is to avoid project's team to hold more tokens and dumping the tokens.

In fact, this is the reason why ICO teams usually decide to burn unsold tokens and this is the common practice. People will always trust more in facts than in words.

[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?

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.

yes I understand with your explanation, the love for the presentation.
I think if you have to, that a project must burn unsold tokens, maybe it will have a good effect on the price situation in the market and improve investor confidence.

[shirackjs]

Whether the coins will be burned will be written in advance in the white paper. If you don’t find this information in the white paper or website, it is better to ask the team before investing.

[Correlll]

In the most cases devs are burning the unsold tokens, but unfortunately it does not affect the price at all. If an ICO had a bounty hunters will dump it to -x10 from the ICO price whatever the token supply is.

[jossiel]

but if the DEV and the team didn't burn it was a crime?

It wasn't a crime if the devs will never burn tokens for that specific token that they have been developing.

is there a requirement that the remaining unsold tokens must be burned?

No, there's no requirement actually everyone can burn their tokens by just sending to a genesis address or address that has no owner.

[abojamal]

Burning unsold tokens is a commitment from a team that offers them to investors
This gives an indication of the possibility of a rise in the price of token
Failure to implement this undertaking is considered a crime and a breach of contract terms
on the other side
Does this process actually affect the price of token in a bearish market?