burning token

[fileo]

Dishonesty is a crime but because we are in decentralized place dishonesty sometimes are not intentional where uncontrollable and unforseen obstacles could happen unexpectedly. Projects are not the same dishonest, some are really honest to their promises they make it to happen.

[bountylayomi]

Burning of token is a good strategy actually that many projects have been using that yield awesome results, it makes the token to be relatively scarce and price will not be able to dump anyhow.
If a team failed to burn the left over tokens as stated/promised them such team is not a reliable one. This is a team that does not have the community members at heart. And in this case, the community members should be very careful in the team.

[mekar sari]

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 fact it must be done because not burning unsold tokens will have a negative impact on in the eyes of investors, Obviously the project will be quiet in the market so I think burning the unsold tokens is an obligation

[canaveralnonie]

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.

But most of the bounty hunters still dump the price of it, even if they burn it. Face it, but that is the common process when the ICO done.

By not burning some tokens is not a crime, because those thing is optional for the team except they stated it from the start. Also, I don't see evidence when the token is burn ( don't have idea about what process they used to be ) .

[Akpuv]

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?

Where there is no Law, there is no crime. No one made a rule that the tokens must be burnt as there is no regulator for the market. We have several situations where the ICO team share the unsold tokens to themselves, and sell it gradually on exchange after listing. Those are most times the dumped tokens that even kill the price during listing most times. How else would you discribe someone selling a total of 5,000,000 tokens at once at $0.001 per token whereas the ICO price was $0.10? I am sure no investor could have done that. Reason it logically with me. You will find that I am telling the truth.

[crenfrosck]

The burning itself do not have to mean anything. Just a desire of devs to make their coin more scarce and therefore make it less prone to fail. The scarcity, however, might be one of the most important factors in the future. Not burning them after a promise? Well, you can fact-check it in a matter of seconds and the very last thing you want to have is hundreds of investors sick of your manners in this small community  . By the way, some projects have quite unique way of burning- the more it is used the more coins are burned. Is this the key to a sustainable crypto startup? Probably. The decision lays on your shoulders. On the other hand, expect the unexpected and do not throw all your savings into any cryptocurrency .

[Gary Levanevskii]

I think that burning does not make the coin more useful. Reducing the number of coins should not affect the price. Therefore, there should be a need for burning.

[Stervyatnik]

No, this cannot be considered a crime, because the team itself has the right to decide how to deal with their tokens!

[giletto]

I think that burning does not make the coin more useful. Reducing the number of coins should not affect the price. Therefore, there should be a need for burning.

But the burning of the token will cause the total supply of the token to decrease and make the token valuable and easily increase in the future. Look at the Binance coin, they have done a great job of burning tokens and helping BNB raise prices very much in this bear market

[s4mp1nt0]

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?

its a good strategy for the token so burn the unsold token so the circulation does not affect the market value. but if the project does not burn it. it will surely turned to scam. because the dev will hold a lot of it.

[shirackjs]

It is not a crime if the team don’t burn the token. But it is going to look bad on the team if promise was made to burn the token, investors will lost confidence. Most likely, the team will proceed with the plan to burn token.

[ropyu1978]

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, I think that is the result of the policies of the developer and the ico team.
so there is no element of crime on that basis. but if a smart team will definitely burn unsold tokens.

[adekogbe]

Burning token is a  strategy ico you use when they fail to reach their hard cap meaning they will not allow their tokens to dump so they burn the tokens  to reduce the total supply and avoid inflation it is also done when trying to reduce the circulation of token is also in the purpose of pushing up price.
Although in my personal experience I have not seen a direct implication of token burn on the market but the myth suggests that it helps to reduce inflation and increase the price

[overnight03]

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'm also very curious about that, how can we know they will burn tokens? It is very difficult to know exactly that, most of us just participate in trust

[inanilujimi]

what I know is that there is no rule that is purely from the developer itself to increase its existence in crypto, if it is already on the exchange.

[indriasyifa]

I have not seen any requirement that the token must be burned, but that it is included in the project's long-term plan token, because the logic is that if it is not burned then the price cannot be controlled.

[ivaf]

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?

As a rule, this condition is prescribed in White Paper.
Judge for yourself - if the tokens remain, and the team just left them for themselves, how can you believe such a project? Likewise, they can take everything for themselves and close the project.

[vhns222]

No not for all projects sometimes it can be burned sometimes no so it depends on team strategy but if they promised to burn then it must be done becouse investors have invested because of it too.

[mirawantirinjana]

burning of tokens that are not sold is just a strategy of the team and DEV for the price stability of their tokens, there is no necessity in burning the token.
and it is not a crime if they do not burn unsold tokens.

[ABDUL86]

Yes, burung of unsold token is a very good concept,it's usually demand the token value and the price of token will also improve if the quality of the token is minimum.