burning token

[Denreal]

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?

What will be done to leftover tokens or tokens that were not sold, is most times left for the developers to decide on what to do with it.
One thing that might put them under compulsion, but not necessary compulsory, is if it is already stated that tokens will be burnt. Then investors might want to hold them unto their words.

[1714808184]

1714808184

[1714808184]

1714808184

[1714808184]

1714808184

[VanDeinsberg12]

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?

What will be done to leftover tokens or tokens that were not sold, is most times left for the developers to decide on what to do with it.
One thing that might put them under compulsion, but not necessary compulsory, is if it is already stated that tokens will be burnt. Then investors might want to hold them unto their words.

But not so many platforms are distributing the rest of unsold tokens rather than burn them all to the market. It looks similar but it has the risk about the possibility to create the more dump to the market dude. I remember some developers have applied that. That depends on how the team manage the unsold token because they have the main key.

[ableh]

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?

Not all ICO do this, because there are some of them only lock it for a several of periods. So there is no requirement that the unsold tokens remaining must be burned. Because burning tokens are included in the marketing strategy, so I think this is not crime.

[TastyChillySauce00]

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?

What will be done to leftover tokens or tokens that were not sold, is most times left for the developers to decide on what to do with it.
One thing that might put them under compulsion, but not necessary compulsory, is if it is already stated that tokens will be burnt. Then investors might want to hold them unto their words.

But not so many platforms are distributing the rest of unsold tokens rather than burn them all to the market. It looks similar but it has the risk about the possibility to create the more dump to the market dude. I remember some developers have applied that. That depends on how the team manage the unsold token because they have the main key.

well you know what, burning token will help to increase the value of token rather than redistributing it. I mean the less he supply.the higher value. The devs would also prefer to burn it because it will help to pump thw value of their assets aswell.

[smithelemuo]

It's not a requirement at all. It's just that the total supply of a token matters to everyone because it can either affect price positively or negatively. So to reduce the supply of a coin and assure the people that the developers are not out to dump on them, they burn tokens.

[jonsky05]

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?

Every team in every project have different strategy and burning token is one of that. Sometimes team doing  if they see that there's no increasing in that token no one is buying. But I think burning unsold token is good for the every will use that token so all will be benefited.

[UAE Seasider]

There is no such requirement and it is not necessarily the best option to help build value in a new coin. One of last year's ICO projects that I took part with decided to use their unsold coins to help integrate new projects on to their platform, so keeping the max coins supply constant and adding value through extra future usage and growth.

[Vaculin]

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?

There is no crime on that if it's stated in the whitepaper, the team are just being transparent.
When burning, the supply will only decrease but the project will continue, and in fact it could give favor to investors, and it's going to be attractive.

[siena23]

I think that must be done. In my opinion it's a good strategy, so the remaining unsold tokens do not become an investor's question. If it is not done, the project team might commit a crime with the rest of the token.

[billy.ryoko]

I don't think it was the crime if the dev have not burn the token, but I am sure if they kept the token and didn't burn it, all the investors will lost the faith in this project, and I saw many time the token will dump in same time.

[Ucy]

I think burning the tokens creates a little bit of scarcity and increase demand. If large amounts of token are left in the hands of developers they would have a lot to dump in the market thereby making the token lose value.

So burning some tokens is a kind of assurance to investors that they  won't be dumped or devalued in the future.
I think you can also create thesame effect if Parts of the tokens are locked for a long period of time instead of the burning.

[castiloros]

burn is the way that the purpose of the token to the balance value. When the sale is not completely exhausted then the anticipation its worth developers will fall burn token to the tokens they travel better and appropriate estimates. many are doing this and not a crime.

[Classica35]

There is no requirement and there is no rule binding on the project team, to burn their tokens. They are to decide if they want to burn or not, irrespective of their total or maximum supply.
In that case, it is now left for the investor if he wants to invest in such project or not.
Although, token burn sometimes can contribute to the price surge of such project, but there are some projects with very large supply, yet they do not burn,but will tell you that the tokens will be used for the development of their platform or in the ecosystem.

[MainIbem]

It is a general belief that unsold tokens are burnt but that is the prerogative of the Dev Team. That is to maintain a certain circulating volume of the token in the market. But I have reservations, because there is no certificate to show that the tokens are actually burnt. there is no independent erification report when the tokens are burnt. Again, the burning do not guarantee the success of the token price in the market.

[therhslv]

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?

Would not say its a crime , but i would not trust the project further after that . There is projects that keep changing whitepaper after ICO , usually i just don't support projects that does not follow roadmap or missing deadlines quite often

[Bittalk12]

Burning some of their tokens depends on the strategy of the team and most of them were written on their roadmap. You will be able to track those if they fulfill their promise by looking on their contract on the blockchain. Burning tokens was very effective on 2017 where the price went up a price but if you will ask most of the investors, burning tokens nowadays no longer have that impact or may take effect when the bull run starts.

[ginobitcoiner]

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.

indeed this is not a crime, but by not burning the remaining tokens it allows prices to fall.

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.

ok, thank you for the information, I just found out if there really isn't a rule that requires DEV to burn their unsold token

[Tervelatuk]

Burning some of their tokens depends on the strategy of the team and most of them were written on their roadmap. You will be able to track those if they fulfill their promise by looking on their contract on the blockchain. Burning tokens was very effective on 2017 where the price went up a price but if you will ask most of the investors, burning tokens nowadays no longer have that impact or may take effect when the bull run starts.

developers actually have two choice with their unsold tokens.first one usually developers team will burn this token and most of investors agree with this action.and another choice was use it as airdrop for token holder.this way very effective to make investors hold their tokens,so price will be stable.

[Ifychuks]

Burning excess tokens will help to reduce the total circulation of the token thereby aiding improvement in the value of the coin.

[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?

I guess they might add the token if they are in an exchange project, they can put it to the liquidity pool in order to maximize the volume of the token that can be used in the entire project.